preschool access feasibility study · 2016-06-03 · 4 8,) 1-0- 8%6= * %1-0= 6)7)%6',-27 - 9 )...

Introduction and project overviewIn August 2014, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) of the U.S. Department of Agricul-ture (USDA), in collaboration with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) for Military Com-munity and Family Policy (MC&FP) and Department of Defense (DoD) accepted grant applications for the Preschool Access Feasibility Study (PAFS). The goal of the PAFS, as stated in the Request for Applications (RFA), is to “assess the preschool program availability to military families located outside the continental United States (OCONUS) installations worldwide.”

According to the RFA, this project supports the mission of the DoD-USDA Military Extension Partnership Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2010. The agreement states, “This Memorandum of Under-standing (MOU) sustains the interagency momentum developed through collaborations with the USDA, land grant universities, and the Cooperative Extension Service in providing joint programs in support of military children, youth, and families, and is responsive to General Accounting Office (GAO) recom-mendations by creating the Partnership for Military Families, to address future cross-cutting issues and challenges in supporting military families, particularly those who are geographically dispersed.”

On Oct. 31, 2014, Purdue University’s Department of Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS) and the Military Family Research Institute (MFRI) were awarded a one-year research grant to conduct the PAFS. The project director and principal investigator is James Elicker, Ph.D., of HDFS, the co-principal investigator is Richard Brandon, Ph.D., of RNB Consulting in Seattle, Washington, and the co-investigator is Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, Ph.D., professor in HDFS and director of MFRI. The research and support staffs at MFRI have been centrally involved in this project. The grant officers are Brent Elrod and Ahlishia Shipley, Ph.D., of NIFA. The Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) point of contact for this project is Lori Pickel, with assistance from Sandra Embler, Ph.D., and Michelle Alexander. Carolyn Stevens of the DoD Office of Family Policy/Children & Youth was a key point of contact for the Child Development Centers (CDCs), and she also engaged the service branch representatives. From the beginning of this study and throughout the research process, Purdue researchers took a broad focus on existing and potential preschool, including both DoDEA-administered and Children and Youth Programs (CYP)-administered programs.

PRESCHOOL ACCESSFEASIBILITY STUDYThis study is the resul t of a partnership funded by the Department of Defense between

the Off ice of Mi l i tary Community and Fami ly Pol icy and the USDA’s Nat ional Inst i tute of

Food and Agr icu l ture through a cooperat ive agreement wi th Purdue Univers i ty.

January 2016

2 The MiliTary FaMily research insTiTuTe at Purdue University

PRESCHOOL ACCESS FEASIBILITY REPORT

The objectives of the PAFS as stated in the RFA are to:1. Identify and operationalize the research based, empirically proven elements of high-quality

developmentally appropriate preschool programs to include curriculum, scheduling, staffing, and logistics through an extensive literature review.

2. Summarize the current preschool programs available at each OCONUS installation co-located with a DoDEA school, to include facilities, access, capacity, fees, transportation, and wraparound care through an in-depth program analysis.

3. Identify options for revising the current opportunities for family members living OCONUS to access high-quality preschool, in order to achieve optimum benefit for children.

4. Identify the most efficacious models and the associated costs required to implement a quality universal preschool program at each targeted OCONUS installation.

5. Produce a final research brief with accompanying executive summary and report, which contains all relevant data tables as well as a gap analysis of recommendations installation by installation or grouped installations with similar characteristics such as demographics and logistics.

To support these objectives the Purdue research team conducted a comprehensive study that included review of the current literature on preschool quality and assessment of preschool access and gaps on OCONUS installations (Europe and the Pacific). The research team then developed options and cost estimates for expansion of preschool offerings on those installations. This report provides a summary of the methods used, the findings, and recommendations for potential expansion of preschool on OCONUS installations.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGYIn response to the RFA, the Purdue team proposed the following research methods to achieve the project objectives:

1. Conduct a comprehensive review of the current early childhood literature on high-quality preschool programs, identifying the key program features that can be assessed within this study in all OCONUS installations.

2. Complete a detailed compilation and summary of available administrative data describing the current supply, quality, and cost components of preschool services currently offered at OCONUS installations, including DoDEA Preschool, Sure Start, early childhood special education, CDCs, Family Child Care Homes (FCCs), and any other early childhood programs, on- or off-base, that are available to families with 4-year-old children.

3. Complete 75 key informant interviews with DoDEA and Child Development Center experts, includ-ing DoD and service branch administrators and the OCONUS installation early childhood program administrators.

4. Make visits to four representative OCONUS installations (two in the Europe region; two in the Pacific region) to visit existing preschool programs, and to conduct in-depth interviews with early childhood leaders and focus group interviews with parents of preschool-age children.

5. Compile all gathered data in a report that a) provides a complete overview of existing preschool program provisions by OCONUS region, individual installation, and preschool program type; b) clearly identifies gaps in amount or quality of preschool service at each of these levels; and c) presents an analysis of practical approaches for closing the identified gaps, including specific cost estimates for each approach. Deliver cost-estimate tables and a cost calculator that will allow DoDEA users to assess the cost impact of varying key program parameters.

All of these research activities were completed during the time period Nov. 1, 2014 through Sept. 30, 2015. The only deviation from the proposed research plan was that formal focus group interviews with parents of preschool age children on OCONUS installations were not feasible within the one-year time

The MiliTary FaMily research insTiTuTe at Purdue University 3

frame of the study, because there was insufficient time to obtain regulatory approval. Nevertheless, informal conversations with preschool and kindergarten parents did occur as we visited installations in Europe and the Pacific in May of 2015.

PARTICIPATING OCONUS INSTALLATIONSThe Purdue research team was directed by DoDEA to focus the preschool feasibility study on all instal-lations in the Europe and Pacific regions that currently house DoDEA elementary schools. This included 31 installations (with 41 primary schools) in Europe and 17 installations (with 24 primary schools) in the Pacific. All data gathering efforts were focused on these identified installations. See Appendix A for a complete list of installations included in this study.

PRESCHOOL ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY: METHODS AND FINDINGSThe PAFS research methods and findings are organized into the following sections:

» Review of literature: What are the key components of quality preschool?

» Preschool on OCONUS installations: Potential enrollment

» Key informant surveys: What do early childhood education leaders on OCONUS installations

report about current and potential preschool programming?

» OCONUS installation site visits: Observations of current preschool and future needs

» Cost and staffing estimation: Developing preschool program options, cost estimates, and the Cost

and Staffing Calculator

Review of literature: What are the key components of quality preschool?While there can potentially be many definitions of “quality preschool,” depending on the source and perspective, this review of the current scientific literature adopts a specific definition most often used by educational and child development researchers. Preschool quality factors are those aspects, features, or processes in the preschool program that are directly or indirectly associated with improvements in educational or mental health outcomes for children.1 Factors with a direct positive influence on children, sometimes called “process quality” factors, include the children’s everyday experiences in preschool, for example, interactions with teachers and learning activities in which the children engages. Factors with indirect influence, sometimes called “structural quality” factors, include features of the preschool programs that are determined by policy or administrative decisions, for example minimum qualifications for teachers, number of teaching staff per classroom, and the maximum number of children enrolled in each classroom.2 These indirect quality factors have



been shown to influence the children through their influence on the direct factors.3 For example, a preschool teacher who is better prepared educationally, who receives strong administrative support and ongoing in-service training, and who has a manageable class size is more likely to engage in interactions with children that enhance their learning and well-being.

The research team conducted a comprehensive review of recent scientific literature focused on programs and outcomes for 3- to 5-year-old preschool-age children. This literature review builds on a previous review completed by Elicker and colleagues in 2007.4 In this earlier review, Elicker evaluated the evidence for 10 key quality indicators that were under consideration in proposed standards for a tiered state child care quality improvement system. The current updated literature search was con-ducted by MFRI research staff using three databases most likely to contain research: PsycInfo, Educa-tion Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Child Care & Early Education Research Connections. We searched both peer-reviewed journal articles and technical reports (“grey literature”) published within the past 15 years. In order to be retained, a reference needed to contain original research data or a review of data-based research focused on preschool quality or the effects of preschool quality on children’s development or well-being. A total of 132 articles and reports were reviewed and abstracted. As the review progressed, the MFRI team developed categories of references based on the quality variables used in each study, and then each reference was tagged for the relevant quality factors. In this way, all of the available evidence for each identified quality factor could be examined individually in this review.

The summary that follows represents an overview of current scientific knowledge about the strongest programmatic predictors of positive outcomes for preschool children. We have identified nine quality factors for which there is at least some reliable research evidence indicating a positive link with child outcomes. Bear in mind that the scientific study of young children in preschool is continually advanc-ing. This review summarizes knowledge that is currently available, but future research will undoubtedly reveal additional important quality variables and may either strengthen or weaken the evidence for the quality factors we identify here.

The amount and quality of research evidence varies somewhat across these nine quality factors, de-pending on the number of studies conducted to date, the alignment of results, and the strength of the research designs employed. We have indicated in the summary that follows which factors have “sub-stantial” evidence for their positive effects on children’s outcomes, and which factors have “moderate” or “emerging” evidence. Factors with substantial evidence have been examined in multiple studies using rigorous designs that show positive effects on children’s outcomes.5 Factors with moderate evidence have either fewer studies or multiple studies with less rigorous designs. Factors with emerging evidence are those that have evidence from only one or a few studies, so while potentially important, they need more research to convincingly establish their importance.

In the descriptions of each of the nine preschool quality factors below, we provide: 1. a description of the quality factor;

2. examples of the available evidence for that factor; and

3. an assessment of the quality of existing evidence, using the concepts substantial, moderate, or emerging evidence, as defined above.

TEACHER-CHILD INTERACTIONSThe day-to-day quality of teaching, both directed at the group of children and in one-on-one interac-tions at various times of the day, is arguably the most important preschool quality factor, because it has a direct impact on the child’s experience. The remaining quality factors discussed in this review are more indirect, or structural. While high-quality, teacher-child interactions are very important, they are not easily changed in any direct way by revisions of program policy. Therefore the indirect factors are



especially important, because they are the policy-related conditions or qualifications that are intended to “set the stage” for high-quality, teacher-child interactions to occur every day in preschool classrooms. Therefore in this report we describe the evidence for teacher-child interactions as one important quality factor, but in the specification of quality features that are accessible to DoD policymaking and for staff-ing and cost estimation, we will emphasize the indirect or structural, policy-related quality factors.In the PAFS, we did not have the time nor the resources to systematically directly observe and assess teacher-child interaction quality in the current DoD preschool programs OCONUS. Valid assessment of teacher-child interaction takes hours of observation in classrooms by highly trained and reliable observers. There are several widely used contemporary measures of early childhood teaching quality, including the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), the Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS), and the Caregiver Interaction Profile (CIP).6 These measures focus on aspects of teacher-child interac-tion that include sensitivity, responsiveness, positive emotionality, support for children’s thinking and language, classroom management and organization, limit-setting, and instructional proficiency.7 While not within the scope of this study, direct observational assessment of classroom teaching quality is recommended as a part of future efforts to improve preschool quality. An example of this quality improvement strategy on a large scale is the recent adoption of the CLASS instrument as an evaluation tool for the national Head Start program.8

There is substantial evidence that the quality of teacher-child classroom interactions contributes to other aspects of quality and child outcomes in early care and education settings.9

For example: » More supportive and positive interactions between teachers and children are associated with the

development of academic and literacy skills during preschool.10

» Children who receive the highest levels of emotional support from their teachers later display the highest levels of social competence. Those who receive the highest levels of concept development interaction with their teachers later show the greatest gains in receptive vocabulary and math skills.11

» In the Tulsa, Oklahoma, public preschool program, teachers who had higher levels of instructional support and classroom organization devoted significantly more time to academic instruction, notably literacy and math activities.12

» Increasing the quality of teachers’ interactions with 4-year-old children resulted in steeper acquisi-tion of numeracy, receptive vocabulary, and general school readiness.13

» Sensitive, involved care is related to positive outcomes for both children and classrooms. The amount and type of adult involvement is related to overall classroom quality.14

» Children with more involved and responsive teachers are rated as more sociable and considerate by parents and teachers15, display more exploratory behaviors16, are more positive17, engage in more complex play18, are better adjusted19, and have better peer relations.20

» High-quality teaching interactions with children may be most effective in classrooms that have achieved a threshold level of high-quality (emotional support, instructional support, classroom organization). One large study of low income children in 11 state pre-kindergarten programs showed that the quality of teacher-child interactions was a stronger predictor of social competence and fewer behavior problems in high quality classrooms in comparison to others.21

TEACHER QUALIFICATIONSEarly research focused on child care settings provided weak or inconsistent evidence that teacher educa-tion levels and specialized training in and child development mattered for child outcomes.22 However, more recent research in pre-kindergarten programs provides significant evidence that the teacher’s



education level and specialized study of early childhood education is correlated with classroom quality. The best quality educational experiences in preschool are provided by teachers who have four-year degrees that specialize in early childhood education. Higher levels of teacher education and training are important contributors to increasing the quality of preschool programs. Currently in the United States, more than 90 percent of preschool teachers in public school programs and nearly 60 percent of teachers in all state-funded, pre-kindergarten programs have at least a four-year college degree.23 Typically these teachers have degrees that require specialized preparation in early childhood education.24

Currently in the DoDEA schools, the minimum qualification for a preschool teacher is a bachelor’s degree with specialization in early childhood education. In the CDC system, the lead teachers (child/youth development program assistants) must have a high school diploma or GED and be at least 18-years-old. Program assistants undergo an intensive background check and training program prior to assuming responsibility for a group of children.25

There is substantial evidence that teacher education, specialized in early childhood education, is related to other measures of child care quality and better child outcomes.

For example: » Several studies of state-supported preschool programs have found that quality is higher in

programs where more teachers have at least a four-year college degree.26

» In two large studies, higher education was associated with better teaching and better language acquisition. Also, children whose teachers had four-year degrees engaged in more creative activi-ties.27 (Note: Some of the research findings have provided evidence for the value of a four-year degree, not necessarily in early childhood education.)

» Formal education (a college degree) is a better predictor of high-quality than training alone.28

» A bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or related field has been found to be the best predictor of higher-quality teacher skills, including overall classroom quality and quality of feedback to children 29 30.

» Children whose teachers had more years of education gained more in math skills over the pre-kindergarten year. 31

» Children whose teachers had at least a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential had more creative activities, higher frequencies of language play and positive management than children whose teachers had a high school education only. 32

» Children cared for by family child care providers who had more formal education and more training scored higher on tests of language and cognitive development. 33

» Language scores among children in the preschool classes were significantly higher if their teacher had a college degree in early childhood and attended a training workshop in the community.34

» Employing teachers with bachelor’s degrees and specialized training in early childhood education leads to better outcomes for young children. 35 36 37



TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTAs with any level of education, the best teaching is provided by educators who are continually learn-ing, growing, and engaging in professional education. While ongoing professional development can take many forms (e.g., workshops, conferences, classes, independent study, etc.), in-service training that includes an ongoing coaching or mentoring relationship seems to be the most effective approach to increasing teacher quality.

There is a moderate level of evidence that ongoing in-service training, including ongoing coaching or mentoring, results in increased preschool quality.

For example: » Teaching interaction quality in Head Start classrooms was improved with the addition of evidence-

based curriculums in literacy and social-emotional development, coupled with the provision of workshops and weekly in-class support from a mentor teacher.38

» Teachers who received both a credit course in early language and literacy and ongoing coaching showed significant improvements in language and literacy practices.39

» Child care center teachers who attended workshops or professional meetings were rated higher on global quality and caregiver sensitivity than those that did not attend such workshops. 40

CLASS SIZE AND TEACHER/CHILD RATIOSmaller class sizes and teacher/child ratios are consistently found to produce more frequent and higher quality interactions between teachers and children, and often better outcomes for children. Most of this evidence is correlational, rather than experimental. Also, the impact of class size may be somewhat dependent on the teacher’s qualifications. The research does not provide evidence for recommending a specific class size for 4-year-old children, except that, in general, “smaller is better.”

There is some evidence that teachers with higher qualifications can offer a high-quality educational experience even when they have a larger class size, compared with teachers who have less education and less specialized training in early childhood education, who may be affected more by increases in class size and thus provide higher quality interactions with smaller groups.41 But there are almost certainly limits, so that even a highly qualified teacher’s effectiveness may decline as class size increases over a certain unknown threshold. The National Association for the Education of Young Children, in its center accreditation standards, has set a maximum limit of class size and teacher/child ratio for 4- to 5- year-old children at 2/20.42

There is a moderate amount of evidence that group size and teacher/child ratio is related to both classroom quality and child outcomes.

For example: » Research on child care classrooms indicates that when groups are smaller, teachers provide more

stimulating, responsive, warm, and supportive interactions. They also provide more individualized attention, engage in more dialogues with children, spend less time managing children and more time in educational activities.43 44

» The increased interaction and communication made possible in smaller classes have been shown to affect children’s outcomes. Children in smaller groups were more likely to participate in child-initiated activities and experiences. In addition, when there are fewer children in the room, teach-ers could more closely mediate children’s social interaction.45



» In the National Day Care Staffing study, children in smaller classes had greater gains in receptive language, general knowledge, cooperative behavior, and verbal initiative, and showed less hostility and conflict in their interactions with others.46

» The most comprehensive national study of children in child care to date is the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Study. It as well as other stud-ies show that the caregiver/child ratio is one of the most important structural characteristics of center-based care, particularly for younger children.47 48 49

» One study of child care centers in three states found that, among several structural characteristics examined, teacher/child ratios were the only factor other than teacher wages that predicted the quality of preschool classrooms.50

» Teachers with fewer children in their care are more sensitive, responsive, warm, nurturing, and encouraging toward the children; exhibit more positive and less negative affect; exert less negative control; and provide more varied and developmentally appropriate activities for the children than caregivers with more children in their care.51

» Lower child/teacher ratios allow teachers to engage in more educational activities (e.g., teaching, promoting problem-solving) with children.52

» Lower child/teacher ratios are associated with more verbal communication between teachers and children, which appears to foster language development in children.53

LENGTH OF SCHOOL DAYIs more better? One would think that if children benefit from a high-quality preschool that lasts 2.5-3 hours per day, they would benefit even more from a preschool experience that lasts 6-8 hours per day. There is also some evidence that a longer school day is more advantageous for 4-year-old children from low income families than for children from higher-income families.

There is a moderate level of evidence that a longer school day in a high-quality program provides additional benefits for children, especially for children from low income families.

For example: » In an expansion of the Child Parent Centers in Chicago, a full-day preschool intervention (7 hours

per day) was associated with increased school readiness skills in four of six domains, attendance, and reduced chronic absences, compared with the part-day program (3 hours per day).54

» Children from low income families who spent more hours in high-quality child care centers had fewer behavior problems. Those who spent more hours in low quality centers had more behavior problems.55

» Children in a large national longitudinal study who experienced more hours of child care of vari-ous quality levels in the first four years of life displayed higher levels of externalizing behavior problems and conflicts with teachers in kindergarten. These correlational effects were modest, and family variables such as relationships with parents were additional, but more powerful predictors of social-emotional problems in kindergarten.56

» In a national sample of children at all SES levels, those who had been in center-based child care had higher cognitive test scores at 4-years-old than those who had been in home-based child care. The same cognitive advantage was present for children who had attended centers for either part-day and full-day.57

» In the National Study of Early Care, third grade children who had spent more time in center-based child care in their preschool years displayed significantly better language and memory skills.58



CURRICULUMThe best results in terms of children’s measureable learning in preschool come about when teachers use a well-organized, evidence-based, developmentally-appropriate, content-focused curriculum. Benefits have been observed when a curriculum that meets these basic criteria is implemented by highly-qual-ified (holding a bachelor’s degree) early childhood teachers as a part of an in-service training process that includes ongoing coaching for teachers that is related to curriculum implementation and use.

There is substantial evidence that full implementation of a developmentally-appropriate, evidence-based, content-focused preschool curriculum produces gains for children.

For example: » Preschool curricula that are evidence-based and target specific skills have proven to increase

children’s learning in the target areas, including literacy, math, and self-regulation.59 60

» New Jersey’s state-funded preschool for children from low income families, which has a research-based, comprehensive curriculum based on the states early childhood core curriculum standards, with classes taught by degreed and licensed early childhood teachers, with class sizes of 15 stu-dents, resulted in persistent gains in literacy, language arts, mathematics, and science, measureable through fifth grade, compared with children who had not had the preschool program.61

» Early childhood teachers using the Heads Up! Pediatric Literacy program curriculum, including a professional development program and mentoring for teachers, had higher quality classrooms and children displayed improved literacy skills compared with children who did not have the curriculum.62

» EPIC, an integrated curriculum focused on instruction in mathematics, language, literacy, and approaches to learning, with formative assessment and a learning community for teachers, showed significant effects and growth rates for Head Start children in mathematics and listening compre-hension compared with other Head Start children who had another curriculum with less integra-tion and without a teacher learning community.

CHILD ASSESSMENTBetter outcomes for children are found when teachers are systematically and continually assessing each individual child’s strengths, interests, and needs in collaboration with the child’s family. By using an assessment system, teachers obtain a current and accurate understanding of learning activities that will challenge each child at an appropriate level, resulting in optimal growth. Developmentally-tailored child assessment is a hallmark of high-quality early childhood education. The National Association for the Education of Young Children recommends that “ethical, appropriate, reliable assessment be a part of all early childhood programs.”63 High-quality programs are “informed by ongoing systematic, formal, and informal assessment approaches to provide information on children’s learning and development. These assessments occur within the context of reciprocal communications with families and with sensitivity to the cultural contexts in which children develop.”64

There is emerging evidence that developmentally-appropriate assessment is associated with improved child development outcomes.

For example: » Authentic assessments involving observations of children’s naturally-occurring activities, such as

the Work Sampling System65, give teachers and parents an accurate picture of each child’s progress developmentally and in relation to the objectives of the early childhood curriculum.



» Research demonstrates that early identification and intervention for children with or at risk for disabilities can significantly affect outcomes.66

» Children with disabilities benefit from in-depth and ongoing assessment, including play-based assessment, to ensure that their individual needs are being met.67

FAMILY ENGAGEMENTIn our increasingly diverse communities of families and young children, early educators need to develop open, collaborative relationships with families and with the community as a whole. Preschool education achieves its highest quality when offered in an environment that is understanding of and consistent with families’ goals and culture.

There is a moderate amount of evidence that parental involvement and parent-provider communication are important components of high-quality early childhood education and also related to child development outcomes.

For example: » Parental involvement at all levels of education is now considered not only desirable but essential to

effective schooling.68 69 70

» The quality of parent-caregiver relationships in early care is associated with other quality indica-tors, including caregiver education level and sensitivity with the child.71

» Parental involvement is linked to children’s school readiness. Research shows that greater parental involvement in children’s learning positively affects the child’s school performance, including higher academic achievement.72 73 74

ADMINISTRATOR QUALIFICATIONS AND SUPPORTA key element of preschool quality, with an emerging evidence base, includes the qualifications and support of the school or center administrator. If the supervising administrator is well-informed about early education and supportive of the teaching staff in various ways, preschool classrooms will function more smoothly and teachers will feel empowered. A positive work environment supports teachers in providing the best quality learning experiences possible in the preschool classroom. In general, director professional development is a hallmark of high-quality early childhood education.

There is emerging evidence that director qualifications and professional development is related to other measures of child care quality.

For example: » Advantages of the program leader being a member of an early childhood professional group include

the opportunity to network with other educators who are also caring for children and better access to resources (newsletters, websites, and conferences).75

» The performance of the program director, particularly as it relates to providing leadership in pro-gram functioning at the administration level and providing high-quality supervision and feedback, predicts program quality.76

» The director sets the tone and climate of concern that is the key element of a quality program.77

» In a number of recent studies, including a large meta-analysis of pre-kindergarten and Head Start programs nationwide, the center director’s level of education was associated with higher program quality. 78 79



» Child care directors who have more experience and education are more likely to appropriately monitor staff, which promotes children’s health.80

SummaryThe literature review identified several characteristics of quality in preschool, that are linked with better child outcomes and school readiness. The features that should be considered having substantial evidence for inclusion as important quality features when making preschool policy decisions:

» teacher-child interactions;

» teacher qualifications including on-going in-service training; and

» a developmentally-appropriate, content-focused curriculum.

In addition, several quality features have moderate evidence for their importance in being linked to other aspects of quality and positive child outcomes:

» small class sizes and teacher/child ratios;

» a longer school day; and

» purposeful family engagement and support.

Finally, two quality features with emerging evidence are:

» the program administrator’s level of education and support for early childhood education; and

» a child assessment system.

These identified quality features, and the quality of evidence supporting them, guided the development of three high-quality preschool options for DoD to be presented later in this report.

Preschool on OCONUS installations: Potential enrollmentIt is important to develop accurate estimates of the number of 4-year-old children that would attend preschool if the opportunity were available. The research team tried a number of strategies to obtain data regarding the number of 4-year-old dependents residing on the OCONUS installations, but accu-rate direct estimates that included both service member and employee families proved difficult to come by. Therefore we think it is useful to start by observing the current enrollment in DoDEA OCONUS kindergarten programs. It was judged by DoDEA staff that approximately 90 percent of age-eligible children are likely to enroll in preschool for 4-year-olds if the program were to be made universally available. Based on accurate head counts from the DoDEA website of kindergarten children attending in May 2015, we estimate that 4,150 4-year-olds would enroll in preschool if the program were universally available OCONUS, 2,222 in Europe and 1,928 in the Pacific.

Table 1: Estimates of number of children who would attend preschool by region

All Regions Europe Pacific

Total DoDEA kindergarten enrollment (2015) 4,610 2,468 2,142

Total number of 4-year-olds who would enroll in preschool, 90% participation rate

4,150 2,222 1,928



Key informant surveys: What do early childhood education leaders on OCONUS installations report about current and potential preschool programming?The goal of the key informant surveys was to summarize the observations, perceived needs, and sug-gestions regarding preschool access from early childhood education leaders currently working on the target installations with educators, families, and the surrounding community. All DoDEA principals of primary or elementary schools, plus all CYP supervisors on these installations, were invited to either complete a phone interview or an online survey between April 2015 and June 2015. CYP supervi-sors were allowed to pass the survey along to CDC center directors or to complete it themselves. The response rate was good. This included 83 percent of those invited from DoDEA schools (55 respondents - 36 in Europe, 19 in Pacific), and 80 percent from CYP/CDC programs (32 respondents - 21 in Europe, 11 in Pacific). In total, the 87 respondents reported on 121 preschool programs on these installations, including Sure Start, Preschool Services for Children with Disabilities (PSCD), CDC programs, and a few other programs labeled as “preschool” or “special education.”

The survey interview covered three basic sets of questions:1. In terms of the quantity of available slots for them, what do you see as the barriers that prevent

this installation from providing preschool to all 4-year-olds?

2. In terms of the quality of available slots for them, what do you see as the barriers that prevent this installation from providing preschool to all 4-year-olds?

3. In your opinion, what would be the best ways to meet any unmet needs for access and quality programming for 4-year-olds?

The complete key informant survey form is included in Appendix B. A complete report of the methods and findings of this survey is included in Appendix C. Following is a summary of the survey findings, organized into six main themes: variations in need for preschool; eligibility constraints; qualified teach-ers; program quality; physical space; and cost/funding.

VARIATIONS IN NEED FOR PRESCHOOLWhile virtually all of the installation early education and care leaders noted the importance of having preschool for 4-year-old children, the perceived need for expanded preschool on their specific installa-tion varied considerably. In some locations, because there are a small number of young children affili-ated with the installation, or because several acceptable preschools are readily available, on or off the installation, the need for additional preschool was reported to be low. In many locations, respondents found it difficult to accurately estimate the level of unmet need. A majority of respondents (61 percent) reported that their preschool program did not have a waiting list. However, some respondents (39 percent) reported that they had waiting lists, ranging in size of 2-36 children. Several stated waiting lists are an unreliable indicator of need, since families are sometimes discouraged from applying for the program or even getting on the waiting list because of the very limited number of slots available or the limiting eligibility criteria. Many respondents (81-91 percent) reported that they knew of children who were attending preschools in the communities off the installation, but they were unsure of how many children were in this category.

The uncertainty of installation early education leaders about the level of need for expanded preschool suggests the need for regular local assessments to determine the need for preschool on each installation.



ELIGIBILITY CONSTRAINTS Preschool programs that are currently available to families have eligibility restrictions that limit the number of participants. In addition to age restrictions (a child must celebrate his fourth birthday by Sept. 1 for Sure Start), programs have eligibility requirements. Sure Start limits participation based on parent rank (priority for enlisted service members) and sometimes other indicators of family need. Some DoDEA school respondents expressed a desire to serve more 4-year-olds on the installation in preschool, including children of officers and civilian employees, if eligibility criteria could be broadened. Currently the DoDEA Sure Start and PSCD are available without cost to eligible participants, providing there is space available in the program. Eligibility constraints were less commonly reported by CDC respondents. CDCs typically offer child care services to anyone on the installation, to children from infancy through school age, charging fees for the service on a sliding scale based on family income.

QUALIFIED TEACHERSBoth DoDEA and CDC respondents recognized the need for attracting and retaining qualified teachers in order to provide a quality preschool program. Respondents from both programs stated that they look for applicants with early childhood education/child development educational preparation, if possible. Teacher qualifications are a significant issue for CDC programs, less so for DoDEA programs. In DoDEA programs all teachers are required to have at least a four-year college degree and appropriate-level teaching license. DoDEA is able to recruit preschool teachers worldwide, and teachers are offered full benefits and living allowance. In CDCs, the entry qualifications for new teaching staff are much lower. Although 10 percent of CDC respondents stated that their “desired entry level education qualification” is a bachelor’s degree, 87 percent stated their desired qualification is an associate’s degree or simply a high school diploma and 18-years-old, which are the published basic qualifications for CYP program assistants. In discussing barriers to staff-related quality programming issues, CDC respondents men-tioned low entry-level qualifications for teaching staff, low level of pay and benefits (compared with DoDEA early childhood teachers), the extensive orientation training periods and background checks required to prepare new staff for teaching, and the frequent transfers of service members that result in high annual staff turnover rates. CDCs are mostly limited to hiring teaching staff already living on the installation, who are typically spouses or dependents of service members, or in some cases local foreign nationals. All of these factors lead to significant challenges in hiring, training, and retaining qualified teachers within the CDCs.

CDC respondents reported that, on average, their teachers engage in more in-service training than DoDEA respondents (38 hours per year compared to 10-13 hours per year). This contrast is no doubt due to both the differences in entry-level qualification levels and also program policies regarding the annual amount of required in-service training. Note that numbers of in-service hours reported here are averages and rely on the recollection of the respondents. It is possible that some in-service was forgot-ten or overlooked by respondents.



PROGRAM QUALITY In addition to teacher qualifications, survey respondents were asked to address a number of other issues related to preschool program quality, including accreditation status, use of a curriculum, class size, and overall quality and barriers to quality.

Both DoDEA and CDC are accredited, although by different organizations. Virtually all of the programs (96 percent) represented in the survey were currently accredited or in the process of being accredited or re-accredited. Ninety-six percent of the DoDEA programs were accredited by AdvanceEd. Eighty-three percent of the CDC programs interviewed were accredited by the National Association for the Educa-tion of Young Children (NAEYC). These are well known, respected accrediting organizations, so the reader can assume that virtually all DoD programs serving 4-year-olds have recently demonstrated a level of overall quality sufficient enough to gain national recognition.

Use of a developmentally-appropriate curriculum is generally accepted as one of the key elements of early childhood program quality.81 More than 90 percent of school principals and CDC directors re-ported that the Creative Curriculum was used as the primary source of educational content and teach-ing strategies. Other commercial curricula used included Everyday Mathematics and Pearson Reading Street, which were used by fewer programs (13-40 percent) and most often reported to be “optional.”

Preschool class size as reported by the key informants varied by type of program. Sure Start administra-tors reported that their classes ranged in size from 14-20 students, with 50 percent reporting a class size of 20. CDC supervisors reported that the class sizes for groups including 4-year-olds ranged from 6-36 students, with 63 percent of the CDC respondents reporting class sizes of 20-24. These reported class sizes are consistent with current policy in DoDEA/Sure Start and CDC, respectively. PSCD class sizes, serving young children with disabilities, are necessarily smaller, reportedly ranging from 7-20 students. Forty-two percent of PSCD classes had a maximum enrollment of 10 students. Class sizes in the two regions did not differ significantly.

Several DoDEA principals and CDC directors, in their general comments about program quality, men-tioned that they thought overall quality was generally higher in Sure Start than in the CDC programs for 4-year-old children. This was usually thought to be related to the higher required qualifications and greater staff stability in the DoDEA programs as compared to the CDC programs. It should be noted



that many CDCs in Europe and in the Pacific have recently developed separate optional “preschool” programs within the centers, usually half-day, with a greater emphasis on academics, and often led by bachelor’s degree-level teachers. This is seen as an effort to meet the demands of families for more preschool programs that are high in quality and emphasize school readiness.

PHYSICAL SPACEHaving sufficient classroom space will undoubtedly be an important issue if the DoD decides to expand the number of preschool classrooms on OCONUS installations. Many DoDEA principals and CDC direc-tors reported that a major constraint for preschool expansion would be space limitations within their facilities. Even when classroom space was available, the respondents sometimes reported that they did not think the available classroom(s) were suitably designed for 4-year-old children. The majority of Sure Start, PSCD, and CDC programs (63-67 percent) surveyed reported that they currently have only one classroom devoted to preschool programming for 4-year-olds. Most DoDEA respondents (62 percent of Sure Start; 72 percent of PSCD) reported that there were currently no additional classrooms available for expanded preschool. However, this also means the 28-38 percent of DoDEA schools did have at least some additional classroom space available. Within the CDCs, there was more space reported available for possible preschool expansion. Fifty-four percent of CDC supervisors reported that they had class-room space available for potential preschool expansion. Typically when principals or directors reported they had some space available, they noted that they had only one additional classroom available (70 percent of those reporting space available), but some had more than one classroom.

In summary, when discussing the idea of expanding preschool services, having enough space is a con-cern for many school principals and CDC administrators. Currently most DoDEA schools use only one classroom for their programs for 4-year-old children (Sure Start and PSCD) and do not have additional space in their current facility. Similarly, CDC programs primarily used only one classroom for preschool programming for 4-year-olds; however, they did more often report having extra space to potentially expand preschool programming.

COST/FUNDINGMost of the DoDEA and CDC respondents recognized that funding availability was a potential barrier to expansion of preschool. Respondents noted that additional funding would be necessary for develop-ing new programs, purchasing curriculum materials, constructing or modifying space, and employing new teachers. Currently the DoDEA preschool programs are offered without cost to eligible partici-pants, but the numbers of children served are constrained by eligibility requirements and enrollment caps. CDC programs are more available to a wider range of families of 4-year-old children, and fees are charged based on an income-determined sliding scale. Various suggestions were offered about funding expanded preschool, including making it available to all children on a sliding fee scale based on family income, or making it universally available and free, with additional government financial support.

SummaryThe vast majority of early childhood education leaders on OCONUS installations recognize the value of preschool for 4-year-olds and advocate for universal preschool in some form. At the same time these local leaders recognize that there are significant challenges in meeting the demands of expanded preschool, in terms of finding funding for the programs, finding qualified teachers, finding available classroom space, and reaching and maintaining overall program quality at a high level.



OCONUS installation site visits: Observations of current preschool and future needsThe purpose of the installation site visits was to gain in-depth knowledge about the context of DoD school-based and CDC-based early childhood education programs in both Europe and Pacific, as well as to meet with administrators, teachers, children, and family members who are directly involved in the current provision of preschool on OCONUS installations. The visited installations were selected by DoDEA staff to include Sure Start locations and distribution across services for CDCs, including Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine installations. The installation visits allowed the research team to make direct observations of the activities and quality of existing programs for 4-year-olds. Elicker and an MFRI staff member visited a total of nine military installations during this month, five in Europe and four in the Pacific. Across both regions the team visited a total of nine DoDEA schools and nine CDCs. DoDEA headquarters staff member Michelle Alexander accompanied the research team in the visits to the European installations. The typical visit to an elementary school or CDC included: a tour of the facility by the principal or director; a one hour or more of observation in one or more of the preschool classrooms; and a meeting with the director or principal, often joined by teachers and support staff from the facility who had been invited, allowing us to discuss the facility and the preschool programs. In addition, the team was able meet and talk with regional supervisors, training staff, and school liaison officers in several locations. Information gathered in these visits both supplemented and enriched the data collected through the key informant surveys and DoD administrative data sources.

ITINERARY OF INSTALLATION VISITS BY PURDUE RESEARCH TEAM, MAY 2–21, 2015Europe Region:

» Travel to Germany (5/2/15)

» Grafenwoehr ES & Rose Barracks CDC (5/4/15)

» Netzaberg ES & Netzaberg CDC (5/5/15)

» Illesheim ES & Illesheim CDC (5/6/15)

» Travel to Vicenza, Italy (5/7/15)

» Vicenza ES & CDC Villaggio (5/8/15)

» Aviano ES & Flightline CDC (5/11/15)

Pacific Region:

» Travel to Tokyo (5/12/15-5/13/15)

» Sullivans ES & Yokosuka CDC (5/14/15)

» Travel to Okinawa (5/16/15)

» Kadena ES & Wakaba CDC (5/18/15)

» Bob Hope PS & Niko Niko CDC (5/19/15)

» Kinser ES & Kinser Yuimaru CDC (5/20/15)

» Travel Home (5/21/15)

The opportunity to visit multiple installations in both Europe and Pacific was extremely valuable for the research team. The school and center leaders and teachers were welcoming and hospitable. Observa-tions and conversations within the schools and centers added a sense of real-life context and respect for the important work these early educators are doing every day in service to military families and young children. The information and the impressions gained by the research team were many and cannot easily be summarized. However, below are some of the main and most important impressions that these visits produced for us:



» There is a clear demand for expanded preschool programming on these installations. Based on the demand they are hearing from families, and also on their convictions about the long-term educational benefits of preschool for all young children, many school and center ad-ministrators expressed the desire to make preschool available to all 4-year-olds affiliated with the installation. At some installations preschools are available off the installation in the surrounding local communities. Parents who are not able to access preschool sometimes enroll their children in these local preschools, which may be conducted in the local language. However, when we talked with small groups of parents about this decision, parents said they would prefer to access preschool on the installation, if available, due to cost, proximity, and security concerns related to taking their children off the installation for schooling.

» Existing preschool classroom environments and learning materials are well-equipped. In both schools and CDCs, we were impressed with the quality of space and materials. There has obviously been a lot of thought and effort directed at creating rich educational environments for children. However, in classrooms in which the teachers were highly qualified and experienced, the available facilities seemed to be used in more enriching and creative ways.

» Sure Start and PSCD generally had highly-qualified, experienced, dedicated teachers who were providing a high-quality educational experience for young children. Because we often visited DoDEA schools and CDCs in the same day, the contrasts in teacher qualifications, experience, and classroom organization were striking. While the CDCs had excellent facilities and dedicated directors and trainers, the differences in teacher qualifications across the program were apparent. Sure Start and PSCD teachers had much experience and could talk about their philosophy and approach to preschool education, and one could see their philosophy reflected clearly in the classroom environment and planned activities. Most CDC teaching staff were relatively new to the field, with basic level training, and were still “finding their way” in managing a group of young children over the course of a day. Most U.S.-hired CDC employees tended to transfer (PCS) with a military spouse, which limited their ability to become long-term employees. These employees also had difficulty obtaining similar or like positions when they return to U.S. CYP locations. Many of the CDC teachers we spoke with had little to say about their educational program; they seemed mostly focused on providing a safe and caring child care environment. Exceptions to this generality were found sometimes in teachers who had been hired to teach in the Strong Beginnings (Army) or other preschool programs organized within the CDCs. These individuals sometimes had degrees and were more education-oriented.

» The DoDEA preschool programs are clearly meeting only a fraction of the need for pro-grams for 4-year-olds. One school we visited had two Sure Start classrooms serving 36 4-year-old children, yet the same school had 200 5-year-old children attending kindergarten. This suggests that approximately 80 percent of the potential preschool participants were not being served in that school. In another large elementary school there were two Sure Start classrooms and seven kinder-garten classrooms. This was a pattern we found in most DoDEA schools visited.

» CDCs are making significant efforts, but they are constrained by current program poli-cies in their efforts to improve and maintain educational quality. These constraints include budget limitations, low entry-level teacher qualification policies, hiring preferences for dependents of service members, who are transferred often, etc. Several of the CDC administrators we spoke with said they are constantly hiring, training, and losing staff members. Many early childhood educators and parents we spoke with, including some within the CDC system, are concerned about the quality of preschool programming available in CDCs.

» Any decision to expand preschool on these installations, no matter how implemented, would have a significant impact on both DoDEA schools and CDCs. Currently CDCs and schools work cooperatively on many installations. Schools offer high-quality preschool 6 hours per day to relatively small numbers of eligible children. Schools have less space available that could po-tentially be used for preschool. CDCs are accommodating additional children’s and families’ needs



by offering care and education during non-school hours (wraparound care) and during summer, and by developing preschool programming for many families that are not eligible or cannot get access to DoDEA programs that are enrolled to capacity. If universal preschool were offered to 4-year-olds only in the DoDEA schools, this could have a severe impact on the enrollment and financial stability of the CDCs, since the older preschool children’s fees typically subsidize the high cost of care for children 3 years and younger.

» Some CDCs are operating at less than capacity and have one or more rooms available that could be used for expanded preschool programming. In some cases the factor limiting use of available space in CDCs is lack of qualified staff to serve as teachers in all the rooms. Finding, train-ing, and retaining qualified teachers remains a challenge for CDC directors. The availability of space in CDCs suggests an obvious collaboration between schools and CDCs. Could DoDEA-qualified and paid preschool teachers conduct preschool classes within the CDCs, with wraparound care provided by the CDC, conveniently available for those who need it?

Cost and staffing estimation: Developing preschool program options, cost estimates, and the Cost and Staffing Calculator OBJECTIVES OF COST AND STAFFING ANALYSISThe cost and staffing analysis was designed to allow policy makers to test the implications of alterna-tive specifications of access to high-quality preschool services for children and families at OCONUS installations, including phasing up to higher quality standards and greater access. This effort con-sisted of two components:

1. Developing a flexible tool that would allow policy makers to compare different policy components for different geographic units (all OCONUS DoD; regions; specific installations). We have named this the Cost and Staffing Calculator.

2. Analyzing the cost and staffing requirements of three specific scenarios (program options) for access and quality as agreed with DoDEA staff (these are discussed in greater detail above). This analysis is presented later in this section of the report. The policy specifications affecting quality contained in the calculator are based on the factors demonstrated in the scientific literature as discussed earlier in this report.

DoDEA recognized that children can be served by a combination of school-based preschool programs and Child Development Centers (CDCs), including basic preschool, wraparound care for students during out-of-school hours and summer care, and learning. The underlying principle is that the quality of all children’s non-parental care hours affects their learning and development. The cost and staffing analysis therefore considers all these service components and displays cost estimates for each compo-nent separately as well as aggregated. For the analysis reported here, quality and access standards are consistent across school-based and CDC programs, though the cost factors for meeting those standards often differ.

METHODOLOGYThis section describes the methodological approach and key features incorporated into the Cost and Staffing Calculator.

The DoDEA Cost and Staffing Calculator was developed as a modification of similar tools created by co-investigator Brandon for other projects, but was adapted to the specific needs and features of DoDEA and CDC operations, pay scales, and budget structures. At a broad level, the calculator consists of:



» (a) Inputs- policy parameters affecting access to preschool, duration of services, and quality of service; and

» (b) Outputs- staffing requirements (numbers of FTEs and individuals) and costs of offering pre-school services, in aggregate and cost per student for each program (DoDEA schools and CDCs).

It should be noted that cost estimates are for the gross costs of providing services. Estimating the change from current costs or potential mitigation of costs by parent fees or other sources was beyond the scope of resources, time, and data available for this project.

The calculator follows an “unfolding” approach, which allows the user to consider either the broad levels of policy inputs and cost/staffing outputs, or to examine each of those in greater detail. It is structured so that the user can see in real time the impact of varying different policy parameters. Policy specifica-tions can be entered for up to three policy program options and the cost and staffing implications directly compared. It is an open Excel spreadsheet, so many more modifications can be generated by saving different runs each containing up to three policy options. For each run, the user specifies the geographic unit of interest – all OCONUS; Europe or Pacific region; a specific installation – and the calculator applies data appropriate to that location.

Directions to users are provided both within the calculator and as a separate PDF file.

The focus of the cost and staffing analysis is primarily on personnel requirements, since they have been shown to have the greatest impact on quality and the site visits conducted did not indicate problems with facilities (see previous section, OCONUS Installation Site Visits). Non-personnel costs were estimated as a constant fraction of personnel FTEs and compensation costs, derived from data in the DoDEA 2014 budget book and from a factor supplied by the DoD Office of Family Policy/Children & Youth.82 The one exception is the recognition that improving access while assuring quality through limiting class sizes may entail increasing the number of classrooms needed. The calculator provides an estimate of number of ad-ditional classrooms required to meet the access and quality standards specified, compared to the current number reported on the survey of installation early childhood education leaders conducted by MFRI.

It is recognized that improving quality may occur in phases. For each policy option, therefore, the user specifies either an improved or advanced level of staff qualifications. It is also possible to generate intermediate options by modifying a limited number of policy specifications.

Staffing specifications are provided for each position in four groupings consistent with DoDEA practice: administration; classroom instruction; instructional support; non-instructional support. Standards are



in terms of staff per facility (e.g. for principals or directors), as a ratio to children served (e.g. classroom teachers), or per classroom teacher (e.g. coaches/mentors). For each position we specified a level of qualification and then matched that to the appropriate DoD pay scale (DoDEA pay matrix; general schedule salaries for CDCs). Thus, under the higher quality specifications, a position such as teacher may have the same title but due to higher qualifications would be paid a higher salary. We included the cost of living quarter allowances (LQAs) at the levels specified by DoD for each region/installation for all staff specified to require at least a bachelor’s level degree.

In addition to the policy specifications, there are a variety of factors affecting cost computations that are a product of current conditions or broader policies beyond the scope of DoDEA and CDC agencies. This includes such features as the ratio of personnel to non-personnel expenses and the amount of LQAs. In some cases specific data are not available for DoD staff, and broader data sources were ap-plied. An example of this is the share of teachers working full vs. part time, which is required to relate estimated FTEs to numbers of individuals. Rather than burying such factors within formulas, we have specified them in a tab of the calculator called Cost Calculation Factors. Thus, as users develop more detailed data, or as external conditions or requirements change, users can easily modify these factors, and the changes will automatically be reflected in the cost and staffing computations. A related set of data affecting staffing and costs includes the number of children eligible to be served at each installa-tion and region and the current number of facilities and classrooms. These are included in a separate Service Estimation tab. Similarly, as new data become available over time, these can be readily changed and will be applied automatically by the calculator.

As noted above, the calculator is built on an unfolding approach, allowing the user either to consider only key policies and examine aggregated outputs, or to delve into more detail. This is accomplished by dividing the calculator into a number of different “tabs” containing different information. Thus, the key policies and summary cost and staffing estimates each appear in one tab, and the two may be viewed simultaneously utilizing view/new window in Excel. Details regarding staffing specifications (qualifications, salaries, FTEs by position) and cost components (for each staffing group and position) are provided in a number of different tabs. These are described in Appendix D.

FINDINGS FOR THREE SCENARIOSSpecification of key features of three scenariosAs noted above [What are the key components of quality preschool?], we agreed with DoDEA staff on three policy scenarios to test for purposes of the cost and staffing analysis: (1) Full-day school-based preschool at advanced level of quality standards; (2) Half-day school-based preschool at advanced level of quality standards; (3) Half-day school-based preschool at improved level of quality standards.

It should be noted that full and half-day specifications are for DoDEA school-based preschool in which children attend a full school day for 6 hours or a half school day for 2.5 hours. CDC-based preschool, on the other hand, is set at 8 hours a day for full-day and 4 hours for half-day. For the half-day scenarios, we added a supplemental 4 hour session for CDC preschool, with staffing at minimum adequate quality levels, reflecting their current mode of operation. Since we are also analyzing impacts for access through CDCs, changing the amount of access or hours of operation for school-based preschool affects the share of children receiving preschool year round at CDCs and the share of children that use wrap-around care at CDCs, as well as the hours of wraparound care at CDCs.

To flesh out the three scenarios, we agreed with DoDEA staff on the following set of detailed specifica-tions for access, duration, and quality of services. The many other features included in the Cost and Staffing Calculator, such as the full set of staff positions and ratio of non-personnel to personnel costs, we kept constant across scenarios. Unless indicated in the following table, specifications were the same for DoDEA school-based and CDC programs.



Table 2: Summary of preschool (pre-K) program options

Option 1Full-day,

advanced quality

Option 2Part day,

advanced quality

Option 3Part day,

improved quality

Access specificationsPercent of kindergarten-enrolled children served in pre-K, total DoDEA plus CDC 90% 90% 90%

Of children in pre-K, share served at DoDEA schools 75% 75% 75%Of children in pre-K, share served at CDC programs (year-round) 25% 25% 25%Of children in DoDEA school pre-K, share in CDC wraparound 40% 60% 60% Of children in DoDEA school pre-K, share in CDC summer 75% 75% 75%

Duration of pre-K and ECE specificationsHours per day – school-based pre-K (for students) 6.0 2.5 2.5Hours per day – CDC-based pre-K (year-round) 8.0 4.0 4.0Hours per day – CDC-wraparound care for school-based pre-K students 2 5.5 5.5Hours per day – CDC-summer care for school-based pre-K students 8 8 8Days per week 5 5 5Weeks per year – school-based pre-K 38 38 38Weeks per year – CDC year-round pre-K 52 52 52Weeks per year – CDC wraparound care for school-based pre-K students 38 38 38Weeks per year – CDC summer care for school-based pre-K students 14 14 14

Quality specifications-classroom instructionClass size: desirable/maximum allowed 15/18 15/18 18/21Child/adult ratio: desirable/maximum allowed 8/10 8/10 9/11Share of classroom staff (basic pre-K program)*

Lead/full teachers 50% 50% 20%Assistant teachers 25% 25% 50%Aides 25% 25% 30%

Professional development – school-based pre-KHours per week per participant-add’l to current hours with children 8-6.5 hours/day 4 4 2% of staff participating, requiring substitutes 5% 5% 2%Ratio of coaches/mentors per FTE teaching staff 1:10 1:10 1:10

Professional development – CDC-based pre-K/ECEHours per week per participant 4 4 2% of staff participating, requiring substitutes 5% 5% 2%

* Definitions of “classroom staff” designations:Lead/full teachers = 4 yr. bachelor’s degree in ECE Assistant teachers = 2 yr. associate’s degree in ECEAides = Child Development Associate (CDA) credential or equivalent

The specifications for staffing of the CDC the basic-preschool and for supplemental sessions are summarized below:

Advanced [CDC basic options 1,2]

Improved [CDC basic option 3]

Minimum adequate [CDC supplemental for

options 2, 3]Lead teachers (BA) % 50% 20% 5%Asst. teachers (AA) % 25% 50% 50%Aides (CDA) % 25% 30% 45%Student:teacher ratio [desired/maximum] 8:1 to 10:1 9:1 to 11:1 9:1 to 11:1



Cost and staffing implications of three scenariosThe calculator allows a wide range of cost and staffing analysis. Here we present broad areas we expect to be of interest to DoDEA policy makers. These include:

» The staffing requirements for DoDEA school-based and CDC programs for each of the three scenarios above, for all OCONUS installations with DoDEA schools.

» Staffing and cost requirements are divided into two sections.

• First, we report findings for basic preschool services, divided between DoDEA school-based and CDC-based programs. The share of children served by each program is a user option and is speci-fied at 75/25 for the three hypothetical program options. We also show the cost and staffing requirements for the CDC supplemental component in the half-day options.

• Next we report the staff and cost requirements for wraparound and summer care services to students receiving school-based preschool, based on the principle that young children’s learning and development is affected by all their non-parental care experiences.

» Values reported include:

• The total dollar costs (gross) of providing services in the three scenarios, rounded to the nearest $0.1 million.83

• The costs per student served for each basic preschool program and for CDC wraparound and summer early childhood education.

• The distribution of costs by: Europe vs. Pacific regions; staffing categories; personnel and non-personnel costs.

We then display these cost and staffing requirements broken down by the two major OCONUS regions (Europe, Pacific), by student categories, and by staffing categories.



It is useful to start with seeing the number of children expected to be served in preschool programs. This is based on the current enrollment in DoDEA OCONUS kindergarten programs. It is judged by DoDEA staff that 90 percent of these children would be likely to enroll in preschool programs if they were made available. Of these, it was specified in our hypothetical model that three-fourths would enroll in preschool in DoDEA schools and one-fourth in preschool at CDCs for which the same quality standards would apply. For the sake of comparison, we also show the costs to each program if all 90 percent of the eligible children were to receive their preschool experience in either DoDEA schools or CDCs.

Table 3: Number of students served by region, DoDEA school-based and CDC programs

All regions Europe Pacific

Total DoDEA kindergarten enrollment 4,610 2,468 2,142

Number receiving pre-K at 90% participation 4,149 2,222 1,928

Number served in school-based pre-K (75%) 3,112 1,667 1,446

Number served in CDC-based pre-K (25%) 1,037 556 482

Number of school-based, pre-K students receiving wraparound ECE in CDC during school year

1,245 Option 1

1,867 Option 2

667 Option 1

1,000 Option 2

578 Option 1

868 Option 2

Number of school-based, pre-K students receiving summer ECE in CDC

2,334 1,250 1,085

Aggregate staffing requirements: Total, DoDEA, CDC The calculator computes staffing requirements in terms of both number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) and individuals. The difference is due to an estimated 75 percent of teachers working full-time and 25 percent part-time (based on U.S. findings from the recent National Survey of Early Care and Educa-tion; NSECE84). FTEs are primarily used for estimating costs. The number of individuals is of greatest interest for planning efforts to recruit, retain, and improve practice of staff. In this summary we report number of individuals.

We first report staffing required for basic preschool in each of the two programs, DoDEA school-based and CDC-based, for each of the three scenarios at the specified level of access.

We next report CDC staffing requirements for wraparound and summer care for each scenario, since the share of year-round preschool and school-year wraparound early childhood education for school-based preschool children for which CDCs are responsible are affected by the policies regarding access to and duration of school-based service as well as quality.

As seen in Tables 4 and 5:Staffing requirements for basic preschool

» Option 1. The total staffing requirement for the first option, full-day of school-based, advanced quality pre-K would be 1,066 individuals – 740 (68 percent) at DoDEA school-based programs, 325 (32 percent) at CDCs.

» Option 2. As would be expected, changing to a half-day at the same advanced level of quality would reduce the number of staff by about 50 percent: school-based to 373, CDC staff providing basic preschool would be reduced to 164. CDC supplemental staffing would be 151 individuals, bringing the total of basic and supplemental to 688 (378 or 35 percent lower than the full-day option).

» Option 3. Shifting the half-day school-based and CDC programs to an improved quality standard, with a slight increase in the desired student:teacher ratio from 8:1 to 9:1, would reduce DoDEA school-based staffing to 342, 31 fewer (-8.3 percent) than Option 2 and 398 fewer (-54 percent)



than Option 1 . CDC preschool staffing for the half-day, improved option would be 157 individuals. This would be a further reduction from the Option 2 level of seven staff (or 4 percent) due to the slight increase in the desired student:teacher ratio from eight to nine. Staffing for supplemental half-day at CDCs would be 157 individuals.

Staffing for wraparound and summer care at CDCs » Option 1. With a full-day preschool program, CDC staffing would require of 76 individuals for wrap-

around care for school-based, preschool students (since students only attend 6 hours/day); and 197 for summer care for school-based, preschool students. Thus, 273 or two-thirds of total CDC staffing would be for wraparound or summer care for school-based preschool students.

» Option 2. With a half-day preschool program, CDC staffing would increase to 291 individuals to provide wraparound care for 60 percent of school-based preschool students; and require 196 for summer care for school-based preschool students.

» Option 3. Shifting the half-day program to improved quality would reduce CDC staffing to 266 for wraparound early childhood education for school-based, pre-kindergarten students and to 179 for summer early childhood education for school-based, pre-kindergarten students, due to the slightly higher student/teacher ratio at the improved quality level.


PRESCHOOL ACCESS FEASIBILITY REPORTTa

ble

4: B

asic

pre

scho

ol s

taffi

ng re

quire

men

ts fo

r all

OCO

NU

S re

gion

s by

pol

icy

optio

n: D

oDEA

Sch

ool-b

ased

and

CD

C ye

ar-r

ound

(ind

ivid

uals

)

Opt

ion

1Fu

ll-da

y,

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

2H

alf-

day,

ad

vanc

ed q

ualit

y

Opt

ion

3H

alf-

day,

im

prov

ed q

ualit

y

Opt

ion

2 vs

. O

ptio

n 1:

#

staff

di

ffere

nce

Opt

ion

2 vs

. Opt

ion

1: P

erce

nt

diffe

renc

e

Opt

ion

3 vs

. O

ptio

n 1:

#

staff

di

ffere

nce

Opt

ion

3 vs

. O

ptio

n 1:

Pe

rcen

t di

ffere

nce

Scho

ols:

6

hour

sCD

Cs:

8 ho

urs

Scho

ols:

Hal

f-da

y se

ssio

n (2

.5 h

rs)

CDCs

: Hal

f-da

y ad

vanc

ed (4

hou

rs)

[Sup

plem

enta

l hal

f-da

y at

min

imum

ad

equa

te st

affing

(4

hour

s)]

Scho

ols:

Hal

f-day

se

ssio

nCD

Cs: H

alf-d

ay

impr

oved

(4 h

ours

)[S

uppl

emen

tal h

alf-

day a

t min

imum

ad

equa

te st

affing

(4

hour

s)]

DoD

EA s

choo

l-bas

ed, p

re-K

740

373

342

-367

-50%

-398

-54%

CDC

year

-rou

nd, b

asic

pre

-K32

516

415

7-1

61-4

9%-1

68-5

2%

Tota

l: Ba

sic

pre-

K1,

066

537

499

-529

-50%

-567

-53%

Supp

lem

enta

l CD

C pr

e-K

(2nd

ha

lf-da

y)N

/A15

115

7N

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A

Tota

l: Ba

sic+

supp

lem

enta

l pre

-K1,

066

688

656

-378

-35%

-410

-38%

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng

Tabl

e 5:

CD

C w

rapa

roun

d an

d su

mm

er s

taffi

ng re

quire

men

t (in

divi

dual

s) fo

r all

OCO

NU

S re

gion

s by

pol

icy

optio

n O

ptio

n 1:

Fu

ll-da

y, s

choo

l-bas

ed,

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

2:

Hal

f-da

y, s

choo

l-bas

ed,

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

3:

Hal

f-da

y, s

choo

l-bas

ed,

impr

oved

qua

lity

Cate

gory

2: W

rapa

roun

d ca

re d

urin

g sc

hool

yea

r for

sch

ool-b

ased

pre

-K s

tude

nts

7629

126

6

Cate

gory

3: S

umm

er c

are

for s

choo

l-bas

ed p

re-K

stu

dent

s19

719

517

9

Tota

l: CD

C w

rapa

roun

d an

d su

mm

er E

CE fo

r sch

ool-b

ased

pre

-K s

tude

nts

273

486

445

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng



Aggregate costs, Total, DoDEA, CDC Costs for basic preschool As seen in Tables 6 and 7 (In all these options, we analyze costs of providing preschool for 90 percent of eligible students.):

» Option 1. The total cost of providing advanced quality, full-day, school-based preschool for three-fourths of these students, with one-fourth served at CDCs, would be $112.5 million. $90.5 million (80 percent) would be at school-based programs, $22.0 million (20 percent) at CDCs.

» If all of the 90 percent of eligible children received basic preschool at school-based programs, the cost would be $119.1 million, since school-based programs cost more per child than CDCs (see cost per child below). This would be an increase of $28.5 million (+31 percent) for the DoDEA school-based cost component, compared to the 75/25 percent mix of school-based/CDC-based preschool. It would increase total (DoDEA plus CDC) costs of basic preschool by $6.6 million (+6 percent).

» If all children were to receive full-day preschool at CDCs, the total preschool cost would be $86.4 million. This would be lower than the $112.5 million total cost for 75/25 percent school-based/CDC, but would almost quadruple CDC costs.

» Option 2. Reducing the advanced quality school-based preschool to half-day would reduce basic preschool costs by $5.5 million or 49 percent to $57.0 million. Most of the decline would be in school-based costs, which would decrease 49 percent from $90.5 million to $45.8 million. CDC basic preschool costs would decline by $10.8 million (-49 percent).

» The reductions from moving to half-day preschool would be partially offset by $8.6 million in costs for the CDC supplemental 4 hours. Thus, the total cost for basic preschool plus supplemental CDC hours would be $65.6 million, $46.9 million (42 percent) less than the full-day Option 1.

» Option 3. Shifting further to a half-day of school-based preschool at the improved quality standard would reduce basic preschool costs to $47.1 million. Compared to the full-day, advanced Option 1, this would be a total cost reduction of $65.4 million (-58 percent); $52.5 million less (-58 percent) for school-based and $12.9 million less (-59 percent) for CDCs.

» Compared to the half-day, advanced quality Option 2, a half-day at improved quality in Option 3 would reduce basic preschool costs by $9.9 million (-17 percent), $7.8 million in school-based and $2.1 million (-19 percent for CDCs).

» When the supplemental half-day at CDCs is taken into account, the difference between a half-day at advanced vs. improved standards remains $9.9 million, since the CDC supplemental costs are the same for Options 2 and 3.

It should be borne in mind that the differences between advanced and improved quality standards represent a package of individual features. It is possible to vary costs by changing only some of these rather than all and the calculator will display intermediate options. Within the half-day of school-based pre-kindergarten options, changing only some of the standards will produce part of the cost reduction.

For example, within the half-day scenarios, the entire shift from advanced to improved quality reduces basic preschool costs $9.9 million. Part way toward that reduction:

» Changing only the student:teacher ratio (from 8:1 to 9:1) would reduce costs by $4.5 million; school-based by $3.5 million, CDC by $1.0 million.

» Changing only the share of lead teachers vs. assistants and aides (from 50%-25%-25% to 20%-50%-30% respectively) would reduce costs by $4.1 million; school-based by $2.9 million, CDC by $1.2 million.

» Combining the two changes above would reduce costs by $7.9 million; school-based by $6.1 million, CDC by $1.8 million.



Tabl

e 6:

Bas

ic to

tal p

resc

hool

ser

vice

cos

ts fo

r all

OCO

NU

S re

gion

s by

pol

icy

optio

n: D

oDEA

sch

ool-b

ased

and

CD

C ye

ar-r

ound

($M

illio

ns)

Opt

ion

1:

Full-

day,

sc

hool

-bas

ed,

adva

nced

qu

ality

Opt

ion

2:

Hal

f-da

y,

scho

ol-b

ased

, ad

vanc

ed

qual

ity

Opt

ion

3:

Hal

f-da

y,

scho

ol-b

ased

, im

prov

ed

qual

ity

Opt

ion

2 vs

. O

ptio

n 1:

$

Cost

di

ffere

nce

Opt

ion

2 vs

. Opt

ion

1: P

erce

nt

diffe

renc

e

Opt

ion

3 vs

. O

ptio

n 1:

$

Cost

di

ffere

nce

Opt

ion

3 vs

. O

ptio

n 1:

Pe

rcen

t di

ffere

nce

DoD

EA s

choo

l-bas

ed p

re-K

(75%

)90

.545

.838

.0-4

4.7

-49%

-52.

5-5

8%

CDC

year

-rou

nd b

asic

pre

-K (2

5%)

22.0

11.2

9.1

-10.

8-4

9%-1

2.9

-59%

Tota

l: Ba

sic

pre-

K11

2.5

57.0

47.1

-55.

5-4

9%-6

5.4

-58%

Supp

lem

enta

l CD

C pr

e-K

(2nd

ha

lf-da

y)N

/A8.

68.

6+8

.6N

/A+8

.6N

/A

Tota

l: Ba

sic

+ su

pple

men

tal p

re-K

112.

565

.655

.7-4

6.9

42%

56.8

-50%

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng

Tabl

e 7:

Bas

ic p

resc

hool

ser

vice

cos

ts fo

r all

OCO

NU

S re

gion

s by

pol

icy

optio

n:

=>Co

mpa

re 1

00%

DoD

EA s

choo

l-bas

ed to

100

% C

DC-

base

d –

year

-rou

nd ($

Mill

ions

)

Opt

ion

1:

Full-

day,

sc

hool

-bas

ed,

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

2:

Hal

f-da

y,

scho

ol-b

ased

, ad

vanc

ed q

ualit

y

Opt

ion

3:

Hal

f-da

y,

scho

ol-b

ased

, im

prov

ed q

ualit

y

Opt

ion

1 vs

. 75

/25%

sc

hool

-bas

ed/

CDC

Opt

ion

2 vs

. 75

/25%

sc

hool

-bas

ed/

CDC

Opt

ion

3 vs

. 75

/25%

sc

hool

-bas

ed/

CDC

100%

DoD

EA s

choo

l-bas

ed p

re-K

119.

160

.149

.8+2

8.5

(+31

%)

+14.

3 (+

31%

)+1

1.9

(+31

%)

100%

CD

C ye

ar-r

ound

pre

-K86

.443

.535

.2+6

4.4

(+29

2%)

+32.

3

(+29

1%)

+26.

1

(+28

7%)

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng



Costs for wraparound and summer early childhood education at CDCs As seen in Table 8:

» Option 1. The cost for wraparound and summer early childhood education at CDCs for school-based preschool would be $18.6 million in the full-day, advanced quality Option 1. Of this, $5.3 million would be for wraparound early childhood education during the 2 hours per 8-hour work day that students would require wraparound early childhood education. An additional $13.4 million would be required to serve those students in the summer.

» Option 2. If school-based preschool was reduced to a half-day, with students only attending 2.5 hours a day (implying a potential need for some students of an average of 5.5 hours/day of wrap-around early childhood education), the costs for wraparound early childhood education at CDCs would increase by $14.1 million to $19.4 million. Summer costs would slightly decrease to $13.1 million. The total for wraparound and summer would thus increase by $14 million to $32.6 million.

» Option 3. Shifting both school-based and CDC preschool to the improved quality standard, within the half-day school-based option, would reduce wraparound costs to $15.7 million, $3.7 million (-19 percent) less than the half-day advanced quality Option 2. Summer costs would be reduced by $2.5 million to $10.6 million (-19 percent).

Per student costs, total, DoDEA school-based, CDC-basedCosts per student for basic preschool Tables 9 and 10 show costs per total children for school-based and CDC programs, rounded to the nearest $100. It would not be meaningful to add total costs per student across school-based and CDC programs, due to different months of service. Nor is it possible to average CDC costs across student categories, since there is potential overlap of children served in wraparound and summer groups.

» For DoDEA school-based preschool, the school year (nine months) cost per student is $29,100 for the full-day, advanced quality Option 1. Reducing to a half-day at the same quality level lowers cost per student to $14,700, 49 percent less. Changing the half-day Option 2 to the improved quality standard in Option 3 further reduces cost per student to $12,200, or 58 percent less than the full-day, advanced quality option. On a half-day basis, shifting from the advanced to the improved quality standard would reduce the cost of half-day program by $2,500 or 17 percent.

» The cost of year-round CDC preschool (12 months, 8 hours per day) would be $21,200 per student at the advanced quality level. Shifting to a half-day at advanced quality would reduce this to $10,800, 49 percent less. Cost per student would decline further to $8,700 for half-day at the improved quality level, $2,100 or 19 percent less. It should be noted that CDC year-round pre-school is for 12 months while school-based is for nine months.

» The differences in cost per student between school-based and CDC-based preschool are largely due to the different non-personnel cost factors used for these two programs. When just personnel costs are considered, a full-day, advanced quality preschool program would cost $17,900 for school-based (9 months) and $18,200 for CDC-based (12 months).

Costs per student for wraparound and summer early childhood educationFor CDCs, the costs vary greatly, reflecting different hours per day and months per year of service.

» The cost of CDC wraparound early childhood education for school-based pre-kindergarten students during the school year would be $4,200 per student at the advanced quality standard, with a full-day school-based program (Option 1). Shifting to a half-day, advanced quality, school-based program (Option 2) would greatly increase the need for CDC wraparound early childhood education since students would be in school only 2.5 hours as opposed to 6 hours a day. The cost per student would more than double to $10,400. Changing the CDC programs to the improved quality stan-dard (Option 3) would reduce the wraparound cost per student to $8,400 (-19 percent).

» Providing early childhood education at CDCs in summer months for school-based pre-kindergarten students would cost about $5,700 per student at the advanced quality level for 8 hours a day. Shift-ing to the improved quality level would reduce that to $4,600 per student (18 percent less than the same hours at the advanced standard).



Tabl

e 8:

CD

C w

rapa

roun

d an

d su

mm

er s

ervi

ce c

osts

for a

ll O

CON

US

regi

ons

by p

olic

y op

tion:

By

stud

ent c

ateg

ory

($M

illio

ns)

Opt

ion

1:

Full-

day

scho

ol-b

ased

, ad

vanc

ed q

ualit

y

Opt

ion

2:

Hal

f-da

y sc

hool

-bas

ed,

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

3:

Hal

f-da

y sc

hool

-bas

ed,

impr

oved

qua

lity

Cate

gory

2: W

rapa

roun

d EC

E du

ring

scho

ol y

ear f

or s

choo

l-bas

ed p

re-K

stu

dent

s (9

m

onth

s)5.

319

.415

.7

Cate

gory

3: S

umm

er E

CE fo

r sch

ool-b

ased

pre

-K s

tude

nts

(3 m

onth

s)13

.413

.110

.6

Tota

l: W

rapa

roun

d an

d su

mm

er E

CE18

.632

.626

.3

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng

Tabl

e 9:

Bas

ic p

resc

hool

ser

vice

cos

ts p

er c

hild

for a

ll O

CON

US

regi

ons

by p

olic

y op

tion:

By

prog

ram

O

ptio

n 1:

Fu

ll-da

y sc

hool

-bas

ed,

adva

nced

qu

ality

Opt

ion

2:

Hal

f-da

y sc

hool

-bas

ed,

adva

nced

qu

ality

Opt

ion

3:

Hal

f-da

y sc

hool

-bas

ed,

impr

oved

qu

ality

Opt

ion

2 vs

. O

ptio

n 1:

$

cost

di

ffere

nce

Opt

ion

2 vs

. Opt

ion

1: P

erce

nt

diffe

renc

e

Opt

ion

3 vs

. O

ptio

n 1:

$

cost

di

ffere

nce

Opt

ion

3 vs

. O

ptio

n 1:

Pe

rcen

t di

ffere

nce

DoD

EA s

choo

l-bas

ed p

re-K

(9 m

onth

s)29

,100

14,7

0012

,200

-14,

400

-49%

-16,

900

-58%

Year

-rou

nd p

re-K

at C

DC

(12

mon

ths

21,2

0010

,800

8,70

0-1

0,40

0-4

9%-1

2,50

0-5

9%

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng

Tabl

e 10

: CD

C w

rapa

roun

d an

d su

mm

er s

ervi

ce c

osts

per

chi

ldre

n se

rved

for a

ll O

CON

US

regi

ons

by p

olic

y op

tion

Opt

ion

1:

Full-

day,

sc

hool

-bas

ed,

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

2:

Hal

f-da

y, S

choo

l-bas

ed,

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

3:

Hal

f-da

y,

Scho

ol-b

ased

, im

prov

ed q

ualit

yCa

tego

ry 2

: Wra

paro

und

ECE

durin

g sc

hool

yea

r for

sch

ool-b

ased

pre

-K s

tude

nts

(9

mon

ths)

4,20

010

,400

8,40

0

Cate

gory

3: S

umm

er E

CE fo

r sch

ool-b

ased

pre

-K s

tude

nts

(3 m

onth

s)5,

700

5,60

04,

600

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng



Distributions of costs, staffing by region, staff category, and personnel vs. non-personnelThe Cost and Staffing Calculator is configured to produce many analyses of cost and staffing by differ-ent categories. In this section we report cost and staffing findings for the three primary policy options distributed across several differentiations: European vs. Pacific region; different categories of staff; and service branches. In all cases the policy specifications are the same as reported above.

Region: Europe, PacificTwo factors affect the different cost and staffing requirements for Europe and Pacific regions: the number of children to be served and the size of living quarter allowances. In more detailed follow-up analyses, policy makers should consider whether regional differences suggest that other cost-related factors such as share of children served should be varied. In our initial analysis, we found that cost per student did not vary substantially between European and Pacific regions, so that the main driver of cost differences is the greater number of children in Europe. Since 54 percent of the current kindergarten-enrolled children in OCONUS installations are located in Europe, and 46 percent in the Pacific, those shares also apply to the distribution of staff and preschool costs for the two regions. Staffing by region The results of the regional staffing analysis are summarized in Table 11. We report here the number of individuals required, assuming that 75 percent of instructional staff are full time.

Basic preschool: » Option 1. The European region would require 577 total staff for the advanced quality, full-day

program; 401 for school-based programs, 176 for CDCs. The Pacific region would require 496 staff; 344 for school-based, and 151 for CDC programs.

» Option 2. The half-day program would require a third fewer staff. In Europe, there would be 374 staff: 203 in school-based, 89 in enriched CDC preschool, and 85 in the CDC supplemental program. The Pacific region would require 323 staff; 175 in school-based, 77 in CDC enriched preschool, and 72 for the CDC supplemental program.

» Option 3. Changing from the advanced to improved quality standard for a half-day of school-based preschool would reduce staffing slightly further to 359 in Europe (38% less than full-day, advanced), of which 187 would serve in school-based preschool, 86 in CDC enriched preschool, and 86 in CDC supplemental early childhood education.

» The picture would be similar in the Pacific region: total staff would decline to 310, 4 percent less than for the advanced quality half-day program and 37 percent less than the full-day advanced program. The split would be 160 for school-based, 75 for CDC-enriched, and 75 for CDC supple-mental programs.



Table 11: Staffing requirement for Europe and Pacific regions by policy option: DoDEA school-based and CDC programs (individuals)

Option 1: Full-day

school-based, advanced quality

Option 2: Half-day


Option 3: Half-day

school-based, improved quality

Europe DoDEA school-based pre-K (75%) 401 203 187

CDCs providing pre-K (25%) 176 89 86

Total: Basic pre-K 577 293 273

CDC supplemental half-day, minimum adequate staffing N/A 82 86

Basic pre-K + CDC supplemental 577 375 359

Pacific

DoDEA school-based pre-K (75%) 344 175 160


Total: Basic pre-K 496 251 235

CDC supplemental half-day, minimum adequate staffing N/A 71 75

Basic pre-K + CDC supplemental 496 322 310

All regions

DoDEA school-based pre-K (75%) 740 373 342


Total: Basic pre-K 1,066 537 499

CDC Supplemental half-day, minimum adequate staffing N/A 151 157

Basic pre-K + CDC supplemental 1,066 688 656

*Total is slightly different from total in Table 4 due to internal rounding

CDC wraparound and summer early childhood educationTable 12 shows the staffing required in each region for CDC wraparound and summer early childhood education for students enrolled in the DoDEA school-based preschool program for each of the options.

» Option 1. The European region would require 149 additional CDC staff under the advanced quality, full-day program; 42 for wraparound and 106 for summer early childhood education.

» The Pacific region would require 127 additional staff; 35 for wraparound and 91 for summer early childhood educa-tion. Recall that 2 hours of wraparound early childhood education is required under the full-day option, since students would only attend school 6 hours a day.

» Option 2. Shifting to a half-day preschool program would require substantially more CDC staff to provide wrap-around for school-based students.

» In Europe, wraparound would increase from 42 to 156 staff; in the Pacific from 35 to 135 staff. Summer staffing would not change from Option 1.



» Option 3. Changing from the advanced to improved quality standard for the half-day of school-based preschool would reduce the number of CDC staff providing wraparound early childhood edu-cation to school-based students in the Pacific somewhat, from 135 to 124, still much greater than the 35 if there were a full-day, school-based program. Due to the slightly higher student:teacher ratio in the improved quality standard, the number of staff for the CDC summer program would decline slightly from 105 to 97 in Europe and 91 to 84 in the Pacific region.

Table 12: Staffing requirement for Europe and Pacific regions by policy option: CDC wraparound and summer early childhood education for students in DoDEA school-based early childhood education (Individuals)

Option 1: Full-day,


Option 2: Half-day,


Option 3: Half-day,


Category 2: Wraparound ECE during school year for school-based pre-K students (9 months)

Europe 42 156 143

Pacific 35 135 124

All regions 77 291 267

Category 3: Summer ECE for school-based pre-K students (3 months)

Europe 106 105 97

Pacific 91 91 84


Total: Wraparound and summer ECE for students in DoDEA school-based pre-K

Europe 149 262 240

Pacific 127 226 207


Costs by region The results of the regional staffing analysis are summarized in Table 13. As in other analysis, all costs are gross costs to the nearest $0.1 million.

Basic preschool » Option 1. The costs for the European region would be $60.8 million for the advanced quality, full-

day program; $49.0 million for school-based programs, $11.8 million for CDCs.

» The cost for the Pacific region would be $52.6 million; $42.4 million for school-based, and $10.2 million for CDC programs.

» Option 2. The half-day, advanced program would cost about 50 percent less than the full-day. For Europe, the cost would be $35.6 million; $25.0 million for school-based, $6.0 million for CDC-enriched preschool, and $4.6 million for the CDC supplemental program.

» For the Pacific region the cost would be $30.7 million; $21.1 million for school-based preschool, $5.1 million for CDC-enriched preschool, and $3.9 million for the CDC supplemental program.



» Option 3. Changing from the advanced to improved quality standard for a half-day of school-based preschool would reduce costs about 16 percent further to $30.3 million for Europe (50 percent less than full-day, advanced), of which $20.9 million would be for school-based preschool, $4.9 million for CDC-enriched preschool, and $4.6 million for CDC supplemental early childhood education.

» The picture would be similar in the Pacific region: total cost would decline to $26.1 million, 15 percent less than for the advanced quality half-day program and 50 percent less than the full-day advanced program. The split would be $18.0 million for school-based, $4.2 million for CDC-enriched, and $3.9 million for CDC supplemental programs.

Table 13: Gross costs for Europe and Pacific regions by policy option: DoDEA school-based and CDC programs ($ Millions)

Option 1: Full-day,


Option 2: Half-day,


Option 3: Half-day,


Europe DoDEA school-based pre-K – 75% 49.0 25.0 20.9

CDCs providing pre-K – 25% 11.8 6.0 4.9

Total: Basic pre-K 60.8 31.0 25.7

CDC supplemental half-day, minimum adequate staffing N/A 4.6 4.6

Basic pre-K + CDC supplemental 60.8 35.6 30.3

Pacific

DoDEA school-based pre-K – 75% 42.4 21.7 18.0





All regions

DoDEA school-based pre-K – 75% 91.4 46.7 38.9





*Total is slightly different from other tables due to internal rounding.



Cost of CDC wraparound and summer early childhood educationTable 14 shows the cost estimated for each region to provide CDC wraparound and summer early child-hood education for students enrolled in the DoDEA school-based preschool program.

» Option 1. The European region would cost an additional $10.1 million under the advanced quality, full-day program; $2.9 million for CDC wraparound and $7.2 million for summer early childhood education. Costs for the Pacific region would be an additional $8.6 million; $2.4 million for wrap-around and $6.3 million for summer. Recall that 2 hours of wraparound early childhood education is required under the full-day option, since students would only attend class 6 hours a day.

» Option 2. Shifting to a half-day preschool program would require substantially more CDC expenditure to provide wraparound for school-based students.

» For Europe, wraparound costs would increase from $2.9 million to $10.4 million; in the Pacific from $2.4 million to $9.1 million. Summer early childhood education costs would not change substan-tially from Option 1.

» Option 3. Changing from the advanced to improved quality standard for the half-day of school-based preschool would reduce the cost of CDCs providing wraparound early childhood education to school-based students in Europe from $10.4 million to $8.4 million and in the Pacific from $9.1 million to $7.3 million (-20 percent), still much greater than the $2.4 million for Option 1 which provides a full-day school-based program.

» Due to the slightly higher student:teacher ratio and smaller share of lead teachers in the improved quality standard, the costs for the CDC summer program would decline from $7.1 million to $5.7 million (-20 percent) for Europe, and from $6.2 million to $5.0 million (-19 percent) for the Pacific.

Table 14: Gross costs for Europe and Pacific regions by policy option: CDC wraparound and summer for students in DoDEA school-based early childhood education ($ millions)

Option 1: Full-day,


Option 2: Half-day,


Option 3: Half-day,


Category 2: Wraparound ECE during school year for school-based pre-K students (9 months)

Europe 2.9 10.4 8.4

Pacific 2.4 9.1 7.3

All regions 5.3 19.5 15.8

Category 3: Summer ECE for school-based pre-K students (3 months)

Europe 7.2 7.1 5.7

Pacific 6.3 6.2 5.0

All regions 13.5 13.4 10.7

Total: Wraparound and summer ECE for students in DoDEA school-based pre-K

Europe 10.1 17.5 14.1

Pacific 8.6 15.3 12.4

All regions 18.7 32.8 26.5* Totals may not add due to rounding



Cost distribution by personnel vs. non-personnel As discussed above, the program features most affecting quality and child outcomes lie in the realm of personnel attributes, support, and complement. The site visit and survey findings also indicated that non-personnel features are mostly not a substantial problem. The possible exception lies in requiring additional classrooms to serve additional children, which would have to be addressed by a more granu-lar analysis than was feasible in this project. For budgeting purposes, it is necessary to consider the aggregate of personnel and non-personnel costs. As mentioned in the methodology section, we were not provided with detailed background information regarding non-personnel costs. For DoDEA school-based costs we were able to derive a cost per staff FTE for DoDEA schools from the DoDEA 2014 budget book. For CDCs, we were supplied a distribution of costs by the DoD Office of Family Policy/Children & Youth with personnel accounting for 85 percent of costs. The Cost and Staffing Calculator therefore applied those factors to the number of staff FTEs in DoDEA schools and CDC personnel costs computed based on policy specification regarding access, duration, and quality standards.

In this section, we therefore show the distribution of total costs by personnel and non-personnel categories. When considering total budget allocations, the combined total should be taken into ac-count. When considering the cost of achieving access to high-quality preschool, the focus should be on personnel costs, since those are computed on a consistent basis across programs. This applies particu-larly when comparing costs per student of different options. It is not valid to average costs per students across different programs operating for different numbers of months, so we show the costs separately for DoDEA school-based and CDC-based preschool.

Personnel costs include basic payroll, payroll for professional development (PD) substitutes, living quarter allowances, and benefits. In this report we consider only total compensation costs. The break-down of compensation into these four categories is available in the runs of the calculator accompanying the report. While the specifics vary slightly by policy option, in general, for both DoDEA school-based and CDC-based programs basic payroll accounts for about 58 percent of compensation, living quarter allowances about 18 percent, substitutes to cover during professional development less than 1 percent, and benefits about 23 percent.

Personnel costs for basic preschool As seen in Tables 15 and 16:

» Option 1. The total cost of providing advanced quality, full-day, school-based preschool would be $112.5 million. Of the $90.5 million for school-based programs, $55.8 million would be for person-nel costs. Of the $22.0 million at CDCs, $18.9 million would be for personnel.

» Option 2. Reducing the advanced quality school-based preschool to half-day would reduce basic preschool costs to $57.0 million. For school-based programs, personnel costs would decline from $55.8 million to $28.3 million. For CDC-based preschool, personnel costs would decline from $18.9 million to $9.6 million.

» The reductions from moving to half-day preschool would be partially offset by $8.6 million in costs for the CDC supplemental 4 hours, of which $7.4 million would be personnel costs.

» Option 3. Shifting further to a half-day of school-based preschool at the improved quality standard would reduce basic preschool costs to $47.1 million. Personnel costs would decline to $21.9 million for school-based programs, $33.9 million lower than the full-day, advanced quality option. Person-nel costs would decline to $7.8 million for CDC-based.

» The reductions from moving to half-day preschool would be partially offset by $8.6 million in costs for the CDC supplemental 4 hours, of which $7.4 million would be personnel costs.



Tabl

e 15

: Agg

rega

te c

osts

, all

OCO

NU

S re

gion

: Per

sonn

el v

s. no

n-pe

rson

nel,

by p

rogr

am ($

mill

ions

) O

ptio

n 1:

Fu

ll-da

y, a

dvan

ced

qual

ityO

ptio

n 2

:H

alf-

day,

adv

ance

d qu

ality

Opt

ion

3:

Hal

f-da

y, im

prov

ed q

ualit

y

Pers

onne

l co

st

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

lPe

rson

nel

cost

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

lPe

rson

nel

cost

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

l

DoD

EA s

choo

l-bas

ed p

re-K

(75%

)55

.834

.790

.528

.317

.545

.821

.916

.138

.0

CDC

year

-rou

nd b

asic

pre

-K (2

5%)

18.9

3.1

22.0

9.6

1.6

11.2

7.8

1.3

9.1

Tota

l: Ba

sic

pre-

K74

.637

.811

2.5

37.9

19.1

57.0

29.7

17.4

47.1

Supp

lem

enta

l CD

C pr

e-K

(2nd

ha

lf-da

y)N

/AN

/AN

/A8.

11.

39.

37.

51.

28.

7

Tota

l: Ba

sic

+ su

pple

men

tal

pre-

K74

.637

.811

2.5

45.3

20.3

65.6

37.1

18.6

55.7

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng

Tabl

e 16

: Bas

ic p

resc

hool

cos

ts p

er s

tude

nt, a

ll O

CON

US

regi

on: P

erso

nnel

vs.

non-

pers

onne

l, by

pro

gram

($)

Opt

ion

1:

Full-

day,

adv

ance

d qu

ality

Opt

ion

2:

Hal

f-da

y, a

dvan

ced

qual

ityO

ptio

n 3:

Hal

f-da

y,

impr

oved

qua

lity

Pers

onne

l co

st

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

lPe

rson

nel

cost

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

lPe

rson

nel

cost

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

l

DoD

EA s

choo

l-bas

ed p

re-K

(9 m

onth

s)17

,900

11,2

0029

,100

9,10

05,

600

14,7

007,

000

5,20

012

,200

CDC

year

-rou

nd b

asic

pre

-K (1

2 m

onth

s)18

,200

3,00

021

,200

9,20

01,

500

10,8

007,

500

1,20

08,

700

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng



Personnel costs for wraparound and summer early childhood education at CDCs As seen in Tables 17 and 18:

» Option 1. The cost for wraparound and summer care at CDCs for students in school-based preschool would be $18.6 million in the full-day, advanced quality scenario; of this $16 million would be for personnel costs. Of the $5.3 million for wraparound early childhood education for DoDEA students during the school year, $4.5 million would be for personnel. An additional $13.4 million would be required to serve those students in the summer months, of which $11.5 million would be person-nel cost.

» Option 2. If school-based preschool were reduced to a half-day, with students only attending 2.5 hours a day, the costs for wraparound early childhood education at CDCs would increase to $19.4 million, of which $16.7 million would be for personnel. Summer costs would slightly decrease to $13.1 million, of which $11.3 million would be for personnel. The total for wraparound and summer early childhood education would thus increase by $14.0 million to $32.6 million, and personnel costs from $16 million to $27.9 million.

» Option 3. Shifting both school-based and CDC preschool to the improved quality standard, within the half-day, school-based option, would reduce wraparound costs to $15.7 million, of which $13.5 million would be for personnel. Summer costs would be reduced by $2.5 million to $10.6 million, of which $9.1 million would be for personnel.



Tabl

e 17

: CD

C w

rapa

roun

d an

d su

mm

er to

tal c

osts

, all

OCO

NU

S re

gion

: Per

sonn

el v

s. no

n-pe

rson

nel (

$ m

illio

ns)

Opt

ion

1:

Full-

day,

sch

ool-b

ased

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

2:

Hal

f-da

y, s

choo

l-bas

ed

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

3:

Hal

f-da

y, s

choo

l-bas

ed,

impr

oved

qua

lity

Pers

onne

l co

st

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

lPe

rson

nel

cost

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

lPe

rson

nel

cost

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

l

Cate

gory

2: W

rapa

roun

d EC

E du

ring

scho

ol y

ear f

or s

choo

l-bas

ed p

re-K

st

uden

ts

4.5

.75.

316

.72.

819

.413

.52.

215

.7

Cate

gory

3: S

umm

er c

are

for

scho

ol-b

ased

pre

-K s

tude

nts

11.5

1.9

13.4

11.3

1.9

13.1

9.1

1.5

10.6

Tota

l: W

rapa

roun

d +

sum

mer

ECE

16.0

2.6

18.6

27.9

4.6

32.6

22.6

3.7

26.3

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng

Tabl

e 18

: CD

C w

rapa

roun

d an

d su

mm

er c

osts

per

stu

dent

, all

OCO

NU

S re

gion

: Per

sonn

el v

s. no

n-pe

rson

nel (

$)O

ptio

n 1:

Fu

ll-da

y, s

choo

l-bas

edad

vanc

ed q

ualit

y

Opt

ion

2:

Hal

f-da

y, s

choo

l-bas

ed

adva

nced

qua

lity

Opt

ion

3:

Hal

f-da

y, s

choo

l-bas

ed,

impr

oved

qua

lity

Pers

onne

l co

st

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

lPe

rson

nel

cost

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

lPe

rson

nel

cost

Non

-pe

rson

nel

cost

Tota

l

Cate

gory

2: W

rapa

roun

d EC

E du

ring

scho

ol y

ear f

or s

choo

l-ba

sed

pre-

K st

uden

ts (9

mon

ths)

3,60

060

04,

200

8,90

01,

500

10,4

007,

200

1.20

08,

400

Cate

gory

3: S

umm

er E

CE fo

r sc

hool

-bas

ed p

re-K

stu

dent

s (3

m

onth

s)4,

900

800

5,70

04,

800

800

5,60

03,

900

600

4,60

0

* Tot

als

may

not

add

due

to ro

undi

ng



Cost distribution by staff categories – administrative/leadership, classroom instruction, instructional support, non-instructional supportAs described above, the Cost and Staffing Calculator calculates costs from the compensation required to meet specified staffing standards for each position. It is therefore useful to examine the amount and distribution of compensation costs among the major staffing groups for each policy option, as seen in Table 19. This table aggregates all components of compensation for each staffing category: basic payroll, the increment for substitute staff during professional development time, living quarter allowances, and benefits.

It is also possible to examine the amount and share of costs for each individual staff position, and for each category of CDC student, but we have not put that level of detail into this report. However, they are available in the runs of the Cost and Staffing Calculator that were used to develop this report.

The majority of costs under all options are for classroom instruction, including special education, ranging from 56 to 61 percent of total compensation. This share is somewhat higher for the advanced quality standards than for improved since they specify a lower student:teacher ratio and smaller class size.

An additional 25 to 30 percent of costs is for instructional support, such as coaches/mentors and specialists in reading/language, assessment, and psychologists.

The shares of administrative non-instructional support (e.g. food service, janitorial, transportation) costs are somewhat higher for half-day, school-based programs, since to some extent they are fixed costs attached to facilities regardless of student hours. It should be noted that for such facility-based costs, we allocate to preschool the share of students at the facility who will be 4-year-olds on an FTE basis which takes account of fewer hours of operation for half-day options.

Table 19: Compensation costs by staff category, all OCONUS regions (Compensation includes basic payroll, payroll for PD substitutes, living quarter allowances, and benefits)

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

$ cost (millions)

Group percent of

total

$ cost (millions)

Group percent of

total

$ cost (millions)

Group percent of

total

School-based: Total 54.1 100% 27.5 100% 21.3 100%

Administration 2.2 3.9% 1.4 4.9% 1.2 5.7%

Classroom instruction 33.3 59.8% 16.7 58.9% 12.3 56.3%

Instructional support 17.1 30.7% 8.6 30.3% 6.8 31.1%

Non-instructional support 3.1 5.6% 1.7 6.0% 1.5 7.0%

CDCs: Total (pre-K, wraparound, summer)

35.1 100% 37.5 100% 30.4 100%

Administration 2.2 6.3% 1.3 3.4% 1.2 3.8%

Classroom instruction 20.9 59.4% 23.0 61.3% 18.3 60.3%

Instructional support 9.0 25.5% 9.9 26.3% 7.8 25.7%

Non-instructional support 3.1 8.8% 3.4 9.0% 3.1 10.2%



CAVEATS AND LIMITATIONSThere are several caveats and limitations to the cost estimates provided in this report.

The personnel cost estimates are relatively precise, based on detailed computation and known pay scales. However, some newly specified positions, such as assistant teacher and coach/mentor, do not have a current equivalent and we had to interpolate their position in pay scales based on their qualifica-tions relative to other staff.

We were not provided detailed information regarding non-personnel and benefits costs. Rather, we applied ratios of non-personnel to personnel costs. In the case of DoDEA school-based preschool, these were derived from information in the DoDEA 2014 Budget Book PowerPoint. For CDCs, we were provided ratios by the Office of Family Policy/Children & Youth in consultation with service branch representatives.

The number of children eligible to be served is a key element and subject to some uncertainty. We explored several data sources, including the DMDC database. None of these were able to yield a reliable estimate of number of 4-year-old children residing at OCONUS installations by including all of the categories of families who are served by DoDEA and CDC facilities. We therefore agreed in consultation with DoDEA staff that current DoDEA kindergarten enrollment is the best available estimate of 4-year-olds, since the numbers of 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds in the population or in military families do not vary greatly. We note that if better data become available, they can easily be inserted into the calculator and cost and staffing estimates will automatically be revised.

Conversion of full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing estimates to numbers of individual staff requires knowing the shares of staff working full vs. part time. Since these data were not available to us with regard to DoDEA or CYP programs, we applied the percentages found in the recent National Survey of Early Care and Education. These are also clearly identified in the cost factors tab of the calculator and can be easily changed if more specific data become available.

Estimating the number of additional classrooms necessary to attain the specified levels of access and quality requires an accurate count of current classroom availability. The only data we were able to attain on current classrooms were from the MFRI survey, which had a substantial number of non-responses. For those installations, we estimated the number of current classrooms by applying the ratio of report-ed classrooms to students at responding installations. While this is a reasonable working assumption, more complete data should be compiled before making firm decisions.

All costs are gross costs of providing service. Estimating the degree to which such costs differ from cur-rent levels or could be mitigated by parental fees or other sources was beyond the scope of this project, since it would require additional data, time, and resources.

Conclusions and recommendations: Quality preschool access for OCONUS installationsThe quality of education and care children receive in the first five years of life has implications for their school success and well-being for years to come. Purdue University’s Department of Human Develop-ment and Family Studies (HDFS) and Military Family Research Institute (MFRI) conducted a study of access to quality preschool for 4-year-old children located on military installations in the Europe and Pacific regions. Included were all installations in all service branches that house Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) elementary schools, including 41 installations in Europe and 24 installa-tions in the Pacific. The study included:



» a review of the current scientific literature on quality preschool;

» a review and analysis of available Department of Defense (DoD) administrative data on preschool provision;

» a survey of key early childhood education leaders on installations outside of the contiguous United States (OCONUS);

» site visits to nine installations in Europe and the Pacific; and

» development of a cost calculator tool for estimating staffing and cost needs of various configura-tions of preschool at the worldwide, regional, and installation levels.

A summary of the main conclusions and recommendations of this study are as follows:

1. There are compelling reasons for DoD to consider expanding the availability of preschool for 4-year-olds on OCONUS installations. There is a significant gap in the supply of quality preschool options for families on most OCONUS installa-tions. Given the short- and long-term potential benefits of high-quality preschool for children and families, and to attain some degree of equity with stateside installations and the general popula-tion within the U.S., expansion of preschool on OCONUS installations is recommended. Based on the number of 5-year-old children currently enrolled in kindergarten on these installations, we estimate that 4,610 4-year-olds currently reside with their families affiliated with installations in Europe and the Pacific. Currently, only about 900 children are served within the DoDEA Sure Start program, and eligibility and enrollment capacity are limited. The DoDEA Preschool Services for Children with Disabilities (PSCD) serves 793 children with special needs, varying in age and level of disability. Many children in PSCD currently benefit or would benefit from also attending a high-quality inclusive preschool classroom for at least part of the day. Four-year-old children are also currently attending Child Development Centers (CDC), some for wraparound daily care before or after attending a DoDEA school and some for one of the recently-developed half-day preschool programs offered by the service branches within the CDCs. Current preschool programs available on the installations often lack sufficient funding, space, or enrollment capacity to meet local preschool needs. In the case of CDCs, cost may be prohibitive for some families, while other families perceive the quality of the preschool program to be insufficient. Based on current DoDEA kindergarten enrollments and usage patterns for preschool in the continental U.S., we estimate that a total of 4,149 4-year-olds (90 percent of current kindergarten enrollment) would attend a high-quality voluntary preschool program if it were offered on these installations.

2. The DoD should aim to hire highly-qualified lead teachers with four-year degrees who can offer a developmentally-appropriate, content-focused, evidence-based curriculum. This would create preschool programs that would produce short- and long- term benefits for children in school readiness, engagement, and emotional well-being. Recent research points to preschool teacher qualifications and an evidence-based curriculum as the most important quality factors that can produce measureable academic and social-emotional outcomes for children. Public pre-kindergarten programs in the United States that have been rigorously evaluated and found to produce measureable benefits for both low income and middle class children are those that employ teachers with four-year degrees and licensed specialization in early childhood education. Based on the available evidence, teachers with a minimum of this level of qualification are needed to offer a preschool program of the highest quality. We cannot conclude, based on the available evidence, that preschool taught by teachers with lower levels of education will fail to produce any positive results



for children. The evidence currently indicates that “more is better” in terms of level of teacher education, degree specialization in early childhood education, and on-going, systematic in-service training for teachers while on the job. Regardless of whether preschool is offered by DoDEA, CDCs, or some other provider, the goal should be to staff the program with highly qualified teachers, as defined in this report.

There will be practical constraints to employing and retaining sufficient numbers of four-year degreed early childhood teachers to serve additional 4-year-olds in military preschools overseas. The availabil-ity of qualified teachers in sufficient numbers who wish to work overseas, and the salary and benefit costs of attracting and retaining teachers with this level of qualification may be limited. When pay and benefits are low, annual teacher turnover is often high, and the resulting instability in programs degrades preschool quality. Therefore the DoD should consider the additional strategy of hiring teachers with a lower level of specialized education, for example at the Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential or two-year degree level. These teachers should receive ongoing in-service training after they are hired to increase their level of teaching expertise. One desirable approach, currently practiced to some degree in the CDCs, would be to assist teachers who enter the system with a CDA credential or two-year degree to work towards a four-year degree in early childhood education over time while on the job, taking advantage of both local in-service training and online courses to obtain needed college credits. For all teachers, regardless of their level and type of education when they enter the preschool program, a planned, continuous, and individualized program of in-service professional development and continuing education is recommended. The current research suggests that a profes-sional development program that includes a significant component of ongoing coaching or mentoring would be most effective at improving teaching quality at all educational levels. We have addressed this in the preschool staff and cost estimations by including a coach/mentor position at a ratio of one coach/mentor per ten classroom teachers. A content-focused, developmentally-appropriate, evidence-based preschool curriculum is another high priority quality factor according to the currently-available research evidence. A content-focused curriculum is one that specifies the skills that children are to learn. A developmentally-appropriate curriculum is tailored to the growing abilities, learning styles, family and community culture, and interests of young children. An evidence-based curriculum is one that has proven in rigorous evaluations to produce significant learning gains in young children, above and beyond results seen with another curriculum or operating with a “business as usual” approach. This may be a comprehensive curriculum, covering a broad range of developmental and academic goals, or it may include a package of more specific focused curricula in combination. An example of this approach would be using an evidence-based math- and literacy-focused curriculum in combination with broader “whole child” curriculum goals and programming. Any curriculum used in high-quality DoD preschool should meet these requirements.

3. Other factors important to consider when developing high-quality preschool options are: class size, teacher to child ratio, a child assessment system, family engagement, and knowledgeable, supportive administrators. There is ample research evidence that limiting class sizes as much as possible, in the range of 15-20 students for 4-year-olds with one highly qualified lead teacher and one assistant teacher or teacher’s aide, typically results in better teaching interactions and educational outcomes for children. While there is no available evidence to make precise class size and ratio recommendations for quality preschool, there is consistent evidence that “smaller is better.” Therefore class size and classroom staffing levels are key quality and cost factors that must be considered carefully.



Having an ongoing, individualized, child assessment system is a key quality factor because it provides specific information about each child that will lead to better decisions about learning activities appropriate for that child, aid in communications with families, and help to identify children who may need additional special education services. When families are more involved with their children’s education, both at home and in school, children do better. Engaging families in early education is another quality factor with direct links to child outcomes in early education. Preschool programs that have proven to produce long-term benefits with the largest impact all had comprehensive programs of family engagement. Finally, there is also new evidence from Head Start and public pre-kindergarten programs that the level of education and knowledge about early education of the program administrator (the director or principal) may be a key quality variable, predicting the quality of the preschool program and child outcomes. This will not be a surprise to early childhood educators. The preschool teachers we visited on OCONUS installations mentioned the importance of the director or principal in supporting the program, helping to find needed resources, meeting daily challenges, reducing stressors, and promoting the importance of early education within the community.

4. In this report we offer three quality preschool options as starting points for a DoD preschool planning process. The Cost and Staffing Calculator provides a way to consider various preschool quality factors at various levels to determine associated costs and staff-ing requirements. The calculator allows users to see cost and quality trade-offs clearly. It also allows users to experiment with staffing and other cost parameters based on various kinds of DoDEA-CDC collaboration, focused at the DoD, regional, or installation level. All estimates are tailored to the currently existing facts and conditions of OCONUS installations and programs.

Based on our assessment of available preschool services and needs and our review of the preschool quality evidence, we suggest three options as starting points for planning preschool expansion. All have potential to produce a quality program, but they vary in specific quality details and associated costs. Each of these three hypothetical options include a collaborative mix of preschool provision, with 75 percent provided in DoDEA schools and 25 percent provided in CDCs. It is estimated that 90 percent of eligible 4-year-olds would participate. We offer these options as starting points for discus-sion and planning, as there are necessary trade-offs when considering quality and cost. The Cost and Staffing Calculator allows users to see these trade-offs clearly and to experiment with staffing and other cost parameters focused at the DoD, regional, or installation level. The major cost findings for these three options are summarized in Table 20 on page 51. It should be noted that only gross costs are shown. Estimating differences to current costs and potential cost mitigation through parent fees were not within the scope of this project.



Option 1: Full-day, advanced qualityThis option includes: • lead teachers with four-year degrees in early childhood education,

• children attending five days per week,

• a class size of 15-18 students,

• each classroom staffed with a lead teacher and assistant or aide,

• wraparound or summer care provided as needed, with

• 5 percent of the teaching staff members receiving approximately 104 hours of in-service profes-sional development per year requiring a substitute.

In this hypothetical scenario, 75 percent of children would receive basic preschool at DoDEA schools within the 6 hour school day for the 38 week school year, and 25 percent would attend a full-day preschool at CDCs for 8 hours a day, for 12 months a year consistent with current CDC practice.

Basic Preschool would cost $112.5 million ($90.5 million for DoDEA school-based and $22.0 million for CDC-based). The annual average personnel cost per child served would be $17,900 for DoDEA school-based preschool (9 months), and $18,200 at CDCs (12 months). This full-day, advanced quality option, with this type of collaboration, would require a total of 1,066 staff (740 school-based, 325 CDC-based) to serve 4,149 children in basic preschool.

Wraparound and Summer early childhood education at CDCs would cost an estimated additional $18.6 million; $5.3 million for wraparound, $13.4 million for summer.

Option 2: Half-day, advanced quality This option includes: • lead teachers with four-year degrees in early childhood education,

• children attending five days per week,

• a class size of 15-18 students,

• each classroom staffed with a lead teacher and assistant or aide,

• wraparound or summer care as needed , with



• 5 percent of the teaching staff members receiving approximately 104 hours of in-service per year requiring a substitute.

Children in DoDEA schools would attend for two and a half hours a day for the normal 38 week school year. Children at CDCs would attend four hours a day of advanced quality enriched pre-school (with the same standards as school-based), and four hours a day of supplemental program-ming at minimum adequate staffing levels.

Basic Preschool would cost $57.0 million ($45.8 million for DoDEA school-based and $11.2 mil-lion for CDC-based); these would be about half the full-day cost. There would be an additional $8.6 million cost for the supplemental half day at CDCs, bringing the total to $65.6 million. The total would be 42 percent less than the full-day Option 1. The annual average personnel cost per child served would be about half that for full-day Option 1: $9,100 for DoDEA school-based preschool (nine months), and $ 9,200 for CDC-based preschool (12 months). A total of 688 staff (373 school-based, 315 CDC-based) would be needed to serve 4,149 children in basic preschool. This is 378 or 35 percent fewer than for the full-day option.

Wraparound and summer early childhood education at CDCs would cost an additional $32.6 million; $19.4 million for wraparound, $13.1 million for summer. This is $14.0 million higher than Option 1, since a half-day school-based program would require a greater need for wraparound care, increasing the CDC cost.

Option 3: Half-day, improved qualityThis option includes: • a smaller share of lead teachers with four-year degrees in early childhood education, relying

more on teachers with at least a two-year degree in early childhood education;

• children attending 5 days per week,

• a larger class size of 18-21 students,

• each classroom with a lead teacher and assistant or aide,

• with wraparound or summer care as needed, with

• 2 percent of teaching staff members would receive approximately 52 hours of in-service profes-sional development per year requiring a substitute.

At DoDEA schools, children would attend a two and a half hour program for the normal 38 week school year. Children at CDCs would attend four hours a day of improved quality enriched preschool (with the same standards as school-based in this option) plus four hours a day of supple-mental early childhood education at minimum adequate staffing levels.

Basic Preschool would cost $47.1 million ($38.0 million for DoDEA school-based and $9.1 million for CDC-based). There would be an additional $8.6 million cost for the supplemental half day at CDCs, bringing the total to $55.7 million. The total would be $56.8 million or 50 percent less than full-day Option 1. The annual average personnel cost per child served would decrease about 17 percent due to the lower staffing standards, to $7,000 for school-based preschool (nine months), and $7,500 at CDCs (12 months). A total of 656 staff (342 school-based, 314 CDC-based) would be needed to serve 4,149 children in basic preschool. This is 410 or 38 percent less than for the full-day option.

Wraparound and Summer early childhood education at CDCs would cost an additional $26.3 million; $15.7 million for wrap-around, $10.6 million for summer. This is slightly higher than Option 1, but $6.3 million or 19 percent lower than Option 2 due to less ambitious standards.



Table 20: Summary of preschool cost estimates: All OCONUS regions, by program

Option 1:Full-day

advanced qualityDoDEA = 6 hours

CDC = 8 hours

Option 2:Half-day,

advanced qualityDoDEA = 2.5 hours

CDC = 4 hours (+ 4 hours supplemental )

Option 3:Half-day,

improved qualityDoDEA = 2.5 hours

CDC = 4 hours (+ 4 hours supplemental )

Basic Preschool [excluding wraparound, summer]

Total Cost($ millions)

Annual personnel

cost per child

Total cost($ millions)

Annual personnel

cost per child

Total cost($ Millions)

Annual personnel

cost per child

DoDEA school-based preschool (9 mos.)

90.5 17,900 45.8 9,100 38.0 7,000

CDC-based preschool (12 mos.)

22.0 18,200 11.2 9,200 9.1 7,500

Total basic preschool 112.5 N/A 57.0 N/A 47.0 N/ASupplemental programming in CDC- addl. half-day

N/A N/A 8.6 8,300 8.6 8,300

Basic preschool + supplemental programming

N/A N/A 65.6 N/A 55.7 N/A

5. The most cost-efficient solutions for expanded quality preschool on OCONUS installations will involve the collaboration of DoDEA and CYP using creative combinations of complementary resources. A key issue on most installations when considering preschool program expansion will be the availability of classroom space for preschool. Another key issue will be the need for full-day or summer programming for children while their parents are at work. The pos-sibility of preschool expansion presents an opportunity for DoDEA and Child and Youth Programs (CYP) to collaborate in inventive ways to provide quality preschool. Finding adequate space for preschool, attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers, and meeting families’ needs for child care are challenges that will best be met with a concerted effort, combining the resources of all DoD early care and education programs. In this study we have not estimated the cost of constructing additional new classrooms for an expanded preschool program. New construction would of course add significantly to the startup cost of providing expanded or universal preschool. However, we observed in the key informant surveys and site visits that there is classroom space available at various locations on these installa-tions, sometimes within DoDEA schools, sometimes within CDCs, and sometimes in other existing buildings on the installation. Of course, all of these spaces may not be currently suitable for a preschool program for 4-year-olds, so existing space would require renovations at additional cost. A thorough assessment of space that could potentially be used for preschool, with or without renova-tion, would be a wise early step in the preschool planning process. Both DoDEA/Sure Start and CDCs currently have strengths and limitations in providing program-ming for 4-year-old children. Both programs currently have high-quality space and equipment appropriate for preschool. Sure Start is able to hire and retain highly qualified lead teachers who



understand and can develop curriculum and other important aspects of a preschool program. The pay and benefits offered by DoDEA contribute greatly to the recruitment and retention of quali-fied teachers. Sure Start is offered without cost to qualified families. Yet Sure Start is currently constrained in the number of children that can be served, restricted primarily to enlisted personnel families, is limited to the traditional school day and school year, and does not have the internal capacity to provide before- or after-school programming or summer programming.

CDCs are potentially able to offer preschool services to more 4-year-old children under the current system, with fees to families offered on a sliding scale based on ability to pay. The CDCs often have classroom space available that could be used for additional preschool programming. CDCs have a well-developed in-service staff training program for all teaching staff. CDCs are able to be flexible in meeting families’ needs for full-day and summer care. They provide programming for children birth to 5 years and often for older school age children before and after school; they offer the possibility to reduce the complications and strains for families that result when children are attending preschool or child care at multiple sites. Yet CDCs have continual challenges, based on current financial and policy constraints, in hiring and retaining highly qualified preschool teachers. Despite having well-qualified program administrators and staff trainers for each center, they are continually hiring, orienting, training, and then losing teaching staff. This results in overall lower levels of teacher training and experience and high teacher turnover rates, all of which adversely affect preschool quality. How could the DoD early childhood programs work together to provide high-quality preschool for all 4-year-olds? There are a number of possible collaborations that would combine resources in complementary ways while reducing or eliminating some current constraints faced by the individual programs, with the ultimate goal of better serving four-year old children and families. One possibility, consistent with any of the three options we presented in this report, would be to make use of all available and suitable classroom spaces on the installations, staffing them with lead teachers provided by DoDEA. Also regardless of location, CDCs could make wraparound care or summer programming available for preschool children who need it. This kind of collaboration is already in place to some extent at many installations, especially those where the CDC is located in close proximity to the elementary school. CDCs could provide additional classroom staff for the preschool program, at the lead teacher or assistant/aide levels, depending on their qualifications. CDCs could also contribute significantly to the ongoing professional development of lead teachers and teacher assistants/aides who work in the preschool program. A more integrated staffing and professional development system for all participating preschool staff could be developed. Better integration of teacher training across DoDEA and CDC was suggested by leaders and teachers in a number of our surveys and site visits. In terms of costs to families, DoD could consider making the basic preschool program available without cost to all families, regardless of rank. If families needed additional places for their children before or after school, or in the summer, those could be offered by CDCs for a sliding fee based on ability to pay, sometimes at or near the same site where the basic preschool program is offered. This set of recommendations is not intended to be the ultimate solution to providing universal preschool on OCONUS installations. We offer these recommendations to provoke discussion within DoD regarding a number of realistic possibilities that would lead to a high-quality, cost-efficient preschool solution. We urge consideration of productive collaboration across DoDEA and CYP in developing preschool improvements on OCONUS installations. The information summarized in this report, the DoD Cost and Staffing Calculator, and these recommendations by the research team will provide starting points for developing options and decisions about how best to serve young children and families stationed overseas.



Appendices

Appendix A: Complete list of installations participating in the Preschool Access Feasibility Study 56

Appendix B: Preschool key informant online survey 58

Appendix C: Installation preschool surveys: Summary report 69

Appendix D: Description of tabs in the Cost and Staffing Calculator 78



Appendix AComplete list of installations participating in the Preschool Access Feasibility Study

Garrison or Installation Name Area School District

USAG Hohenfels Europe **Hohenfels ES Bavaria

Storck Barracks Europe **Illesheim ES Bavaria

USAG Grafenwoehr Europe **Netzaberg Bavaria

USAG Ansbach Europe **Rainbow ES Bavaria

USAG Grafenwoehr Europe **Vilseck ES Bavaria

USAG Ansbach Europe Ansbach Elementary School Bavaria

USAG Stuttgart Europe Boeblingen Elementary School Bavaria

USAG Garmisch Europe Garmish Elementary School Bavaria

USAG Grafenwoehr Europe Grafenwoehr Elementary School Bavaria

USAG Stuttgart Europe Patch Elementary School Bavaria

USAG Stuttgart Europe Robinson Barracks Elementary School Bavaria

Royal Air Force Alconbury Europe **Alconbury ES Isles

Royal Air Force Lakenheath Europe **Lakenheath ES Isles

USAG Benelux-Schinnen Europe AFNORTH Elementary School Isles

USAG Benelux Europe Brussels Elementary School Isles

Royal Air Force Croughton Europe Croughton Elementary School Isles

Royal Air Force Lakenheath Europe Feltwell Elementary School Isles

USAG Benelux-Schinnen Europe Kleine Brogel Elementary School Isles

Royal Air Force Menwith Hill Europe Menwith Hill Elementary School Isles

Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe Europe SHAPE Elementary School Isles

Spangdahlem Air Base- Bitburg Annex Europe **Bitburg ES Kaiserslautern

USAG Wiesbaden Europe **Hainerberg ES Kaiserslautern

USAG Kaiserslautern Europe **Kaiserslautern ES Kaiserslautern

Ramstein Air Base Europe **Ramstein ES Kaiserslautern

USAG Kaiserslautern; Sembach Kaserne Europe **Sembach ES Kaiserslautern

USAG Baumholder Europe **Smith ES Kaiserslautern

Spangdahlem Air Base Europe **Spangdahlem ES Kaiserslautern

USAG Wiesbaden Europe Aukamm Elementary School Kaiserslautern

U.S. Army Medical Command Landstuhl Europe Landstuhl Elementary School Kaiserslautern

USAG Kaiserslautern Europe Vogelweh Elementary School Kaiserslautern

Aviano Air Force Base Europe **Aviano ES Mediterranean

Incirlik Air Base Europe **Incirlik ES Mediterranean



Garrison or Installation Name Area School District

Lajes Field Europe **Lajes ES Mediterranean

CNIC. Naval Support Activities Naples Europe **Naples ES Mediterranean

Rota Naval Air Station Europe **Rota ES Mediterranean

Naval Air Station Sigonella Europe **Sigonella ES Mediterranean

USAG Vicenza: Caserma Ederle Europe **Vicenza ES Mediterranean

Ankara Support Element Europe Ankara Elementary School Mediterranean

Naval Support Activity Bahrain Europe Bahrain Elementary School Mediterranean

USAG Livorno- Camp Darby Europe Livorno Elementary School Mediterranean

Moron Air Base Europe Sevilla Elementary School Mediterranean

USAG Japan: Camp Zama Pacific **Arnn Elementary School Japan

Misawa Air Base Pacific **Cummings Elementary School Japan

Commander Fleet Activities Sasebo Pacific **Darby Elementary School Japan

Commander Fleet Activities Yokosuka Pacific **Ikego Elementary School Japan

Naval Air Facility Atsugi Pacific **Lanham Elementary School Japan

Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni Pacific **MC Perry Elementary School Japan

Yokota Air Base Pacific **Mendel Elementary School Japan

Commander Fleet Activities Sasebo Pacific **Sasebo Elementary School Japan

Misawa Air Base Pacific **Sollars Elementary School Japan

Commander Fleet Activities Yokosuka Pacific **Sullivans Elementary School Japan

Yokota Air Base Pacific Yokota West Elementary School Japan

Camp Casey Pacific **Camp Casey Korea

Camp George Pacific **Daegu Elementary School Korea

USAG Humphreys Pacific **Humphreys Elementary Korea

Osan Air Base Pacific **Osan Elementary School Korea

Yongsan Garrison Pacific **Seoul Elementary School Korea

Command Fleet Activities Chinhae Pacific CT Joy Elementary School Korea

USMC Camp McTureous Pacific **Bechtel Elementary School Okinawa

Kadena Air Base Pacific **Bob Hope Primary School Okinawa

Kadena Air Base Pacific **Kadena Elementary School Okinawa

USMC Camp Foster Pacific **Killin Elementary School Okinawa

USMC Camp Kinser Pacific **Kinser Elementary School Okinawa

USMC Camp Foster Pacific **Zukeran Elementary School Okinawa

Kadena Air Base Pacific Stearley Heights Elementary School Okinawa



Appendix B Preschool key informant online survey



Appendix B. Preschool key informant online survey, continued



Appendix CInstallation preschool surveys: Summary report

Preschool Access ProjectPurdue UniversityAllison Flittner, Ph.D.Military Family Research Institute at Purdue UniversityAugust 18, 2015

INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of the installation surveys was to gather information, perspectives, and suggestions from early childhood education leaders at the installations in Europe and Pacific regions about the need for expanded preschool opportunities for 4-year-olds and potential ways of expanding high-quality preschool offerings.

A research team at Purdue University developed the installation survey, based on planning meetings with DoDEA and CYP administrators. The survey was field tested with a small number of DoDEA prin-cipals and CDC directors and was modified based on their input. The survey was distributed to DoDEA principals and CYP administrators, based on contact lists provided by the Headquarters administrators of these programs. Respondents were offered the option of completing the interview by phone, and 9 (11.4 percent) of the respondents chose this option. All other respondents completed the online survey. The survey was conducted between April 16th, 2015 and June 11th, 2015. The interviewees invited included principals of all primary schools located on installations in Europe and Pacific, plus all CYP supervisors who are responsible for Child Development Centers on these same installations. Principals and CYP supervisors were encouraged to complete the survey themselves, but were allowed to delegate another administrative staff person to do the survey if needed. Typically, DoDEA principals completed the survey themselves. Some of the CYP supervisors completed the survey, reporting on one or more CDCs. Others passed the survey along to CDC directors, so there was a mix of supervisors and directors representing the CDC programs. The response rate was very good. The total number of respondents for the DoDEA schools was 55 (36 in Europe; 19 in Pacific; overall 83.3 percent of those invited) and the total number of respondents for the CDC programs was 32 (21 in Europe; 11 in Pacific; overall 80.0 percent based on 40 e-mail invitations that went out to CYP supervisors).

School principals and CDC administrators were asked specific questions regarding each of the programs they supervised for 4-year-olds (up to five different programs). In total, 121 programs were reported upon. For school principals, most described having a Sure Start (46.3 percent of the programs de-scribed) and/or Preschool Services for Children with Disabilities (PSCD; 46.3 percent) program. The remaining programs were described as preschool or other special education programs. For the purposes of these analyses, these few “other programs” were included in analyses when looking at DoDEA services as a whole, but were excluded when analyses were examining specific program details. Most CDC programs described were for Army installations (42.3 percent) followed by Navy (28.8 percent), Air Force (19.2 percent), and Marine Corps (9.6 percent) installations. Programs reported had between 0-96 students enrolled. Most Sure Start and PSCD programs ran for 9-10 months per year (80.7 percent and 83.3 percent respectively); whereas most CDC programs ran for 12 months per year (70.8 percent).

All school and CDC administrators, regardless of whether they currently had programming for 4-year-olds, responded to the following questions:

1. In terms of the quantity of available slots for 4-year-olds, what do you see as the barriers that prevent this installation from providing preschool to all 4-year-olds?



2. In terms of the quality of available slots for 4-year-olds, what do you see as the barriers that prevent this installation from providing preschool to all 4-year-olds?

3. In your opinion, what would be the best ways to meet the unmet needs for access and quality programming for 4-year-olds?

In analyzing the survey responses, six themes emerged as barriers to 4-year-olds getting preschool services.

1. Variation in need

2. Eligibility restrictions

3. Qualified teachers

4. Program quality

5. Physical space

6. Cost/funding

Within each of these categories, we combined responses from close-ended and open-ended questions. In Table C-1, we have outlined how the structured questions in the survey aligned with the general themes.

Table C-1: Survey questions by themes

Identified barriers Types of questions

Variation in need

• How many children are currently on a waitlist?

• Do you know if children use services off the installation?

• How many children use services off the installation?

Eligibility requirements• What are the eligibility requirements for 4-year-olds children and

their families?

Qualified teachers• What are the qualifications of a lead teacher?

• How much in-service training is required?

Program quality

• What curriculum does the program use?

• Is the program currently accredited?

• What are the maximum class size?

Physical space• How many classrooms are there in this program?

• How many new classrooms could be added without new construction?

Cost/funding • What are the program fees?

RESULTSMany of the principals and directors noted the importance of having preschool program for 4-year-olds. As one CDC administrator stated, “There is a huge need for 4-year-olds to begin their pre-K education before kindergarten. Children are learning at a rapid speed and we need to start early.” The following is a summary of the responses to these questions and the recommendations offered by these early education leaders. Responses to each question are organized by region (Europe; Pacific) and by type of program (Sure Start, PSCD, or CDC). Quotes from individuals are included, to illustrate key points made by respon-dents. Finally, summary comments by the research team are included at the end of each section.



Variations in need for preschool Although principals and directors agreed the preschool programming is important, there was variance in their responses regarding if there was a need in their community.

In both regions and across program types, some principals and directors reported a significant need for more resources and programming for 4-year-olds. Most simply stated there is “not enough preschool programs for 4-year-olds” or there needs to be an “increase the quantity of programs for 4-year-old children.” At one European school, the principal noted that they had a long waiting list (18 students) for their Sure Start program and that this continued to be a problem year after year.

For some programs, it is hard to understand how many children are at need, because some parents may not apply for services because they are discouraged, assuming they will be waitlisted or not even make the waitlist. This was reflected in one assistant principal’s comments “there are a lot of parents who would appreciate services who don’t even try because they know that their child won’t get in.”

In contrast to these programs, some other participants reported that their programs were meeting the needs of all 4-year-olds in their community. Principals and directors attributed this lack of need to either the local community offering services for 4-year-olds or having only a few 4-year-olds who live on the installation. For example, one participant from a European CDC said:

“I don’t think there are any barriers. Working parents either have their children in care on or off base… 4-year-olds are able to start regular school. For non-working parents, their children qualify because of income/rank or they simply choosing not send their child to care.”

Another participant from a Pacific DoDEA school reported, “We do not have enough students available to attend the program.” This lack of students may also be a reflection of the type of military families located on an installation. For example, one European principal acknowledged, that they live in an “dependent restricted location,” leading to fewer families and thus less need in the area.

Contrary to the idea that programs are meeting the needs of the community, most principals and CDC directors knew of children who were attending programs off the installation, in particular programs in the Pacific. Of those that responded 81.1 percent of DoDEA principals and 90.9 percent of CDC directors reported that there were at least some children who attended preschool off installation. All principals and CDC directors we interviewed in the Pacific reported knowing about children receiving services off the installation, whereas only 75.6 percent of principals and CDC directors in Europe knew that children were attending programs off the installation. While most of these providers knew of children getting services off the installation, most were unsure of how many children were using these off-base services.

In addition, while most administrators reported their program does not have a waitlist (61.2 percent), for the currently available programs, those that had a waitlist ranged from 2-36 children. This rein-forces the notion that the military installations have varying needs. Looking solely at the numbers, it would appear that some schools are able to accommodate most of the eligible children in their area; however, some programs are not able to meet the needs of children in their area.

Eligibility restrictionsMany providers recognized that there were restrictions in place for who could be admitted to their programs. Most programs reported restrictions based on the child’s age (e.g. being 4-year-old by September 1st); however, some programs had additional restrictions or preference based on the par-ent’s employment classification, child’s disability status, or family income. These restrictions varied by the type of program, for example, Sure Start programs serve lower income/employment classification



families, and PSCD programs were more likely to have requirements based on the child’s age and disability (See Table C-2). In contrast, only half of the CDC programs mentioned child’s age as a requirement and none mentioned the child’s disability. Sure Start and CDC programs were most likely to list parent’s employment classification. Most Sure Start programs have restrictions based on family income; however, few PSCD and CDC programs reported this restriction. The only significant regional difference was more programs from the Pacific reported restrictions based on family income than programs in Europe.

Table C-2: Restrictions

Sure Start PSCD CDC

Child age 100.0% 77.4% 51.9%

Parent employment classification 87.1% 25.8% 50.0%

Children’s disability 74.2% 90.3% 0.0%

Family income 71.0% 6.5% 7.7%

These findings were not surprising given the specific existing program policies. For example, Sure Start policy states that a child has to turn 4 by September 1st and that their parents employment classifica-tion should be used for determining preference for enrollment. Likewise, PSCD program policy states that children need to have demonstrated a significant difference in actual functioning compared to a non-disabled child of the same age; however, compared to Sure Start, PSCD has fewer eligibility restric-tions based on parent employment classification and family income.

While one principal recognized that these restrictions on Sure Start and PSCD eligibility do help some children get the services they need, there are other children who would benefit from these services. “Currently, DoDEA-sponsored preschool programs are geared to the pay grades of military families (enlisted soldiers)—and rightfully so. Preschoolers of officers and civilian families, too, will benefit from public pre-school.” A few of the principals reported that being “allowed to have a preschool for typically developing student” would be one way to meet the needs of 4-year-olds. For the DoDEA programs, most report-ed only offering services to children with special needs or children from low-income families; leaving many children who do not meet these criteria without preschool programming.

In contrast, for CDCs eligibility restrictions were not as prevalent an issue. However, a few directors did mention that eligibility requirements impaired their ability to serve all 4-year-olds. In general, CDC program policy was less restrictive than DoDEA program policy. These fewer eligibility restrictions seemed to be reflected in the CDC directors responses.

Qualified teachersBoth CDC and DoDEA programs recognize the need for attracting and retaining high-quality teachers. Based on responses, hiring and retaining qualified teachers was a more prevalent problem for CDC programs than for DoDEA programs. One CDC director noted that they were having “difficulty employing qualified candidates as teachers,” others merely stated that “lack of staffing” was a barrier in program quality.

Multiple CDC directors acknowledged that part of the problem facing CDCs high turnover of staff related to short military deployments. As one director stated “staffing…. 2 year deployment if you are lucky….some work a couple of months and the family is PCSing to the next site.”



Another director mentioned:It takes 18 months for individuals to complete our DoD Module Training program. After completing the module and taking time to synthesize the information and incorporate it into their practice, it is usually 2-3 years after they started. Many families receive PCS orders every three years, so by the time we have worked to develop this professional they relocate.

Another Pacific CDC director mentioned the difficulties competing with the school programs to obtain high caliber staff.

Unfortunately, our main issue is the caliber of staff. We do not have many talented individuals who are attracted to working in this field and those who are educated or experienced tend to want to work in the schools. We have a fantastic curriculum, highly educated administrators and trainers, but the caliber of the people on the front lines is not as strong with regards to the American employees.

When principals and directors described their teachers’ qualifications, as expected we found variation based on the type of program. For example, teachers in the school-based PSCD and Sure Start programs typically had a bachelor’s or a graduate degree (See Table C-3). In contrast, most teachers in the CDC programs typically had a high school diploma or associate’s degree.

Table C-3: Entry level degree desired

Sure Start PSCD CDC

High school diploma 0% 0% 54.2%

Associate’s degree 0% 0% 33.3%

Bachelor’s degree 83.3% 80.0% 10.3%

Graduate degree 16.7% 20.0% 0%

These results are aligned with teacher qualifications required in DoDEA and CDC policy. For example, DoDEA policies for Sure Start and PSCD programs state that teachers must have at least a Bachelor’s Degree and a teacher license. CDC policy states that teachers need to have at least a high school degree. Since the CDC had lower education requirements of teachers, it is not surprising that CDC directors reported their teachers have less education than DoDEA program teachers. There were no significant regional differences.

As for the type of degree desired, both the Sure Start and CDC administrators looked for teachers with degrees specializing in child development or early childhood education. As expected, PSCD programs preferred teachers to have degrees in special education and/or early childhood education.

Three-quarters of Sure Start and PSCD programs look for teachers with a certain number of completed college credits. While only half of the CDC programs looked for teachers with a certain number of completed credits, nearly all desired teachers to have a Child Development Associate Credential (See Table C-4).

Table C-4: Desired teacher requirements

Sure Start PSCD CDC

Completion of college credits 76.9% 75.0% 51.1%

Child Development Associate Credential* 22.7% 23.8% 97.8%

*Chi-square test indicated there were significant differences in these proportions, related to type of program



While the DoDEA programs had higher educational standards for teachers, CDC programs reported their teachers participated in more in-service training (See Table 5). Most Sure Start and PSCD pro-grams required teachers completed six college credits within 5-6 years. Most CDC programs required teachers to complete 24 hours of in-service training per year. Furthermore, on average CDC directors reported significantly more in-service hours on coaching/mentoring and on-site courses or workshops than DoDEA principals. Sure Start and PSCD programs had similar number of in-service training on all categories except off-site course or workshops. For off-site course or workshops, Sure Start programs had significantly more hours than PSCD programs. The only regional difference was Europe region programs had significantly more hours on college courses for credit than Pacific region programs (1.60 vs. 0.37 hours).

Table C-5: In-service training provided, average hours per year

Sure Start PSCD CDC

Coaching/mentoring 5.61 7.04 16.46

On-site courses or workshops 1.80 1.25 17.07

Off-site course or workshops 6.38 1.41 3.02

College courses for credit 0.66 0.93 1.67

In summary, across all program types, principals and directors noted the importance of having quali-fied teachers. However, programs varied in their entry-level educational requirements and in-service training. Generally, CDC programs have significantly lower educational requirements; however, offered more in-service training than DoDEA programs. Despite having lower education requirements, CDC programs were also more likely to report difficulty finding and retaining qualified teachers, probably related to a limited pool of interested applicants and relatively low pay and benefit levels. These find-ings reinforce the striking differences in the teachers that the CDC’s are attracting compared to DoDEA programs.

Program quality. Along with having qualified teachers, many of the school and CDC administrators reported the importance of quality programming for the children who attend. Many of the principals and directors recognized that there was a difference in the quality of programs. As one principal stated “There are FCC (Family Child Care Homes) that have no qualifications but still can be called a preschool.” In order to improve the quality of programming available, some DoDEA principals suggested more restric-tions be placed on CDCs and FCCs, such as higher accreditation standards.

Nearly all of the programs were accredited or in the process of reaccreditation (95.8 percent). Of the six programs that were not accredited, two were DoDEA programs and four were CDC programs. This reflects DoDEA and CDC policy, which states that all programs are required to be accredited. While nearly all programs were accredited, programs used different accreditation providers. Most DoDEA programs were accredited using the AdvanceEd (96.4 percent), in contrast, most CDC programs were accredited with NAEYC (83.3 percent)

We also asked principals and directors about the curriculum used in their programs. Again, while most reported requiring a set curriculum, there was variance in which curriculum was used. As seen in Table C-6, the most common curriculum used was Creative Curriculum. Significantly more Sure Start and CDC programs used this curriculum than PSCD programs; many reported requiring this program. In contrast, many PSCD programs reported this curriculum was an optional rather than required. Pro-grams also reported using other curricula such as Everyday Mathematics and Pearson Reading Street.



Table C-6: Curriculum use reported, required (optional)

Sure Start Required

(Optional)

PSCD Required (Optional)

CDC Required (Optional)

Creative Curriculum 90.6% (3.2%) 31.3% (34.4%) 88.9% (2.2%)

Everyday Mathematics 16.1% (25.8%) 9.4% (25.0%) 6.7% (20.0%)

Pearson Reading Street 9.4% (21.9%) 6.3% (28.1%) 2.2% (11.1%)

Other 3.1% (3.1%) 21.9% (0.0%) 2.2% (0.0%)

Note: Some programs reported using more than one curriculum, so column percentages may exceed 100 percent.

We also compared these findings to program policy. Both Sure Start and PSCD program guidelines state that these programs should be using Creative Curriculum in their classrooms, so we expected most providers to be using that curriculum. Since PSCD programs involve children of varying ability, it is also not surprising that programs may need to use different curriculums to meet the needs of the children. Similarly, for CDC programs, we found guidelines that programs should use a DoD Component ap-proved curriculum. From our interviews, it appears that nearly all CDC programs are using, if not requiring, that their programs use Creative Curriculum. In our review of policy guidelines, we did not see any mention of the Everyday Mathematics or Pearson Reading Street being required or suggested for DoDEA or CDC programs, so it was not surprising that these curricula were used at lower rates than Creative Curriculum.

In addition to use of a curriculum, there were differences in the preschool class size (number of children enrolled per classroom.) On average CDC programs enrolled more students per classroom than DoDEA programs (20.7 vs. 15.7 students). On average, PSCD programs had the small classroom maximums. PSCD programs maximum class size varied from 7-20 students, with most programs having 10 student maximum (41.7 percent of programs). PSCD programs allowed significantly fewer students per classroom than Sure Start or CDC programs. In contrast, Sure Start programs ranged in maximum class sizes from 14-20 students with a majority (50.0 percent) having the 20 student maximum. CDC programs reported the greatest variance in maximum class size with a range of 6-36 students; however most programs reported either a 20 (32.6 percent) or 24 (30.8 percent) student maximum. There was not a significant difference between Sure Start and CDC programs for the maximum number of stu-dents per classroom. There were no significant differences based on region.

These reported maximum classroom sizes align with program policy. For example, Sure Start policy states the maximum class size is 20 students. For CDC centers, the maximum class size for 4-year-olds was 24 students. While these seemed to be the most common values, there was some variance in the class sizes.

In summary, most CDC and DoDEA programs were accredited and did use a specific curriculum. However, there was variation in which accrediting agency and which curriculum was used. In addition, there were some differences in the maximum number of children enrolled in the classroom. Most of the differences reported did align with differences in CDC and DoDEA program policy. As reflected in the comments by administrators, in order to improve the quality of the classroom, there needs to be an emphasis on programs being accredited and utilizing a curriculum. However, while most programs are doing these things in general, quality standards would be more comparable if the programs were subject to the same accreditation and curriculum policies.



Physical spaceIn contrast to the program differences in the quality of teacher and programming, many DoDEA and CDC programs reported having adequate space or finding additional physical space as a barrier. While most programs reported having only one classroom with preschool programming for 4-year-olds (66.7 percent Sure Start, 63.3 percent PSCD, 62.5 percent CDC), some programs have multiple classrooms for each program (e.g., one CDC had six classrooms within one center.) Most Sure Start and PSCD programs reported that there were no additional classrooms available for expanding without new construction (62.1 percent Sure Start, 72.4 percent PSCD). In contrast, more than half of the CDC programs reported that there were available classrooms that would allow for expansion (53.8 percent).

In addition, to the significant difference between DoDEA programs and CDC programs, there were also regional differences regarding the available space for expansion. In the Pacific, more principals and directors reported they could add classes without new construction than programs in Europe (60 percent vs. 25 percent). Most principals and directors (69.6 percent) who reported they had available space only had space for one additional classroom without new construction. This was consistent across regions and program types.

This constraint on physical expansion was underscored in administrators’ responses to open-ended questions. Many DoDEA and CDC respondents noted that they were “limited in space.” Even when there may have been extra classrooms available, one principal noted that these spaces do not meet the requirements for a preschool classroom (e.g. having a bathroom located inside the classroom). In addition to having limited space available in their current buildings, some directors reported there was limited space available on the installation. One European director noted “there is minimal additional space available on the installation to develop another classroom.” A Pacific principal noted a similar issue at their installation “land around most schools is tight so to add on to schools would be difficult.”

In summary, when discussing the idea of expanding services, having enough space is a concern for many school principals and CDC administrators. Currently, most schools only use one classroom and do not have space in their current facility. Similarly, CDC programs primarily used only one classroom for pre-school programming for 4-year-olds; however, they did more often report having extra space to potentially expand programming.

Cost and fundingAnother universal barrier to providing programming to all 4-year-olds was funding. While principals and directors reported on a variety of other barriers, most of them recognized that funding was tied to being able to address those barriers. Principals and directors noted there would need to be additional funding for programs and for teachers. One European principal recommended, “Expand funding for preschool programs so that all 4-year-olds in this community can attend preschool. This funding would need to cover staffing, construction of additional classrooms, and curriculum materials.”

Similarly, one Pacific CDC director stated “provide funding for paying highly qualified teachers, proper build-ings, and a sliding fee scale for parents.” While this director suggested having a sliding scale for families, others supported the idea that these programs should be free. Another principal stated, the best way to meet the current need is to provide “Free and equitable access for all 4-year-old children.” Providing services for all 4-year-olds is going to require programs to receive more money. This money either needs to come from fees or from the government. As one Pacific director reported “[It] would literally require Act of Congress for funding necessary” to meet the current need.



There were significant differences in the fees assessed to families based on the type of program. All Sure Start and PSCD programs reported the program being free for eligible students. In contrast, CDC programs reported there was a fee for services; however, most (75.0 percent) reported having a sliding scale. There were no regional differences in the fees assessed to families. These findings align with program policy. Currently Sure Start and PSCD program policy states that these programs should be free for all eligible families. In contrast, CDC policy states that program fees may be adjusted depending on the family’s income.



Appendix DDescription of tabs in the Cost and Staffing Calculator

INTRODUCTION/EXPLANATIONWorkbook contentThis contains a list of the tabs, describing their contents, and notes to the user on their application.

POLICY SPECIFICATIONSPolicy parameters - staff complementThis worksheet contains the key policy choices to be specified, including the geographic unit to be considered (region, installation), the hours/days/weeks of the year to provide service, staffing for classroom instruction, and a range of leaderships and support positions. Staffing parameters are to be specified for each of the three programs; they may be the same or varied. Staff positions are divided into four groups using DoDEA categories: administrative/leadership; classroom instruction; instruc-tional support; non-instructional support. Some policy parameters are specified at the staff group level, others for each position within the group. The first policy option, labeled “Model Program (or High-Quality Recommendations”) contains the expert recommendations based on the literature review conducted on behalf of DoDEA. For each policy option, the user may select whether to apply a basic or advanced set of staffing qualification standards; whichever is selected will apply to all staff positions for that policy option. Professional development (PD) in various formats is a key component for achieving and maintaining high-quality. The user is therefore asked to specify the type and amount of PD to be required for each staffing group and which percent of staff will participate and require that their time be “backfilled,” requiring additional staff FTEs. It is assumed that administrative/leadership staff will participate in PD as part of their job and that their time in PD cannot be backfilled by substitutes. A key calculation is the number of FTEs of classroom staff implied by the combination of number of children to be served, class sizes, and student:teacher ratio. The user specifies the share of classroom staff at different levels: lead/full teacher, assistant teacher, aide; the Cost and Staffing Calculator automatically applies these shares to the computed FTEs of classroom staff. It is also recognized that it may not be cost-effective to create a new classroom and greatly reduce overall ratios if the computed number of staff and classrooms yields a ratio slightly greater than desired. Users are therefore asked to specify both the desired class size and ratio and the maximum allowable level for each. It is also recognized that physical facilities may impose a serious constraint. The Cost and Staffing Calculator therefore flags to the user when the combination of children to be served, ratio, and class size yields a required number of classrooms that exceeds the number reported as currently available. If this occurs, the user clicks the “Show/hide additional options” button and the Cost and Staffing Calculator displays the changes in number of children served, classrooms required, or increase in average class size required to resolve the inconsistency. Entering different changes in values of these parameters in different policy options allows the user to see the cost and staffing implications of each alternative resolution. As indicated above, these staffing specifications and constraints are considered separately for each of the three program components.

Staff policy detailsThis worksheet/tab shows the detailed staffing implications of the various policy specifications in the Staff COMPlement tab for each policy option. This tab recognizes that both staff FTEs and numbers of individuals are relevant for policy making. Number of FTEs is essential for budgeting purposes. Number of individuals is necessary for considering recruiting and training requirement. For each pro-gram component, the first table displays the number of FTEs for each staff position and group, broken down by FTEs to conduct their primary duties and the incremental FTEs necessitated by backfilling



their positions for participation in professional development activities. A second table displays the number of individuals for each staff position and group, broken down by full time vs. part time, for each policy option.

Policy parameters - staff characteristics This worksheet displays the average salary levels for each staffing position, which are used to convert the number of FTEs of staff to salary costs. These are derived as the mid-point of the current DoDEA and GS pay schedules for the relevant staffing positions. These salaries are modified by the years of experience specified for basic and advanced levels of higher quality. Salary levels vary commensurately between basic and advanced levels.

Staff position matrix This worksheet contains detailed information about each staff position relevant to specifying qual-ity standards and compensation. Many of the qualifications and standards are derived from current DoDEA standards. The unit/denominator column defines what the staffing standard is based on, such as number of principals are INDIVIDUALS PER FACILITY while instructional staff are FTEs derived from the class size and student:teacher ratios. Some positions, such as principals, are DISCRETE, meaning that only whole individuals are hired. Other, such as classroom teachers, are CONTINUOUS, meaning that fractions of individuals may be hired, reflecting a mix of full and part time staff. Some staff positions may only be relevant for serving HIGH RISK students or require a different ratio for high risk students. The service estimation tab includes an estimate of the share of high risk students based on DoD data regarding parental pay grade and marital status.

Number of classes - intermediateThis worksheet/tab displays the factors included in the class size computations as background reference for the user. It shows how the various factors affecting the number of required classrooms interact and how computations yielding a fractional number of classrooms are rounded to integers.

OUTPUT TABLESOutput summary: Number of staff; cost of policy optionsThis worksheet/tab summarizes the calculations of cost and staffing needs associated with each of the policy options for the specified geographic unit. It contains three tables. Each table displays the results for each policy option plus the absolute and percent differences among the options for each of the three program components (school-based pre-K; CDCs-school-year; CDCs-summer).

» Table 1: Number of individual staff members (across all positions)

» Table 2: Total annual cost for each program component under each policy option, broken down by personnel vs. non-personnel costs

» Table 3: The annual costs in Table 2 divided by the number of students served

Cost calculation factors Certain factors necessary for the cost estimates are not the result of early childhood education policies, but of broader DoD policies (e.g. employee benefit levels) or empirical information (e.g. the share of principals’ time allocated to pre-kindergarten vs. elementary grades). These factors are made explicit in this tab and built into appropriate formulas. Thus, if any of the policies or empirical situations change, these factors can be easily updated. Similarly, if there is reason to believe that these factors are different for a particular region or installation, the factors may be modified when running an analysis for such region or installation.



Compensation costsThis tab provides more detail on the compensation cost displayed in the output summary for the relevant geographic unit.

» Table 1: For each of the program components, the compensation cost for each of the staffing categories is provided: Administration/leadership; classroom instruction; instructional support; non-instructional support. Within each of those categories, compensation is broken down into: Basic Payroll; PD increment; LQAs; benefits.

» Table 2: Displays the primary payroll cost total (salaries) for each staff position within each of the four staff categories.

Professional development costs: Direct (costs of staff hours) This tab displays the components yielding the PD costs included in compensation cost, including the aggregate staff hours allocated to PD, average salary of staff in the group (weighted by their level of participation in PD), and the total.

No cost estimates of the indirect costs of providing training are included since we were advised that those are covered by DoDEA and DoD training.

Non-personnel costsThis tab provides details on the non-personnel costs based on information received from DoDEA.

BACKGROUND INFORMATIONService estimation: Children by region, installation, service branch This worksheet displays the data on number of dependents by age group at each installation and region by service branch. It also contains data on current number of facilities and classrooms. It contains the percent high risk applied to estimate the number of children requiring special services. The number of children to be served is distributed between school-based pre-K and CDCs according to the shares speci-fied by the user in the Policy Parameters - Staff COMPlement tab.



Endnotes1 Rachel A. Gordon, Kerry G. Hofer, Ken A. Fujimoto, Nicole Risk, Robert Kaestner & Sanders Korenman (2015) Identifying

High-Quality Preschool Programs: New Evidence on the Validity of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale–Revised (ECERS-R) in Relation to School Readiness Goals, Early Education and Development, 26:8, 1086-1110, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2015.1036348

2 Phillipsen, L.C., Burchinal, M.R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997). The prediction of process quality from structural features of child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 281-303. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90004-1

3 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Child-care structure à process à outcome: Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children’s development. Psychological Science, 13(3), 199-206.

4 Elicker, J., Langill, C.C., Ruprecht, K.*, & Kwon, K.* (2007). Paths to QUALITY- Child care quality rating system for Indiana: What is its scientific basis? (Technical report no. 1). West Lafayette, IN: Center for Families, Purdue University.

5 A “rigorous design” as used here means and evaluation that had a representative sample of program participants and evaluated effects on children or families using an experimental design, with random assignment to the program and the control group, or a quasi-experimental design with a matched comparison group.

6 CLASS: La Paro, K.M., Pianta, R.C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The Classroom Assessment Scoring System: Findings from the Prekindergarten Year. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (5), 409-426. Caregiver Interaction Scale: Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day-care centers: Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 541-552. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(89)90026-9 Caregiver Interaction Profile: Helmerhorst, K. O. W., Riksen-Walraven. J. M. A., Vermeer, H. J., Fukkink, R. G., Tavecchio, L. W. C. (2014). Measuring interactive skills of caregivers in child care centers: Development and validation of the Caregiver Interaction Profile Scales. Early Education and Development, 25(5), 770-790. DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2014.840482

7 Elicker, J., Ruprecht, K., & Anderson, T. (2014). Observing infants’ and toddlers’ relationships and interactions in group care. In L. J. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care. Dordrecht: Springer.

8 Hamre, B.K. et al. (2012). A course on effective teacher-child interactions: Effects on teacher beliefs, knowledge, and observed practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 88-123. DOI: 10.3102/0002831211434596.

9 Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager To Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers. Washington, DC: Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, National Research Council.

10 Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Quality of Social and Physical Environments in Preschools and Children’s Development of Academic, Language, and Literacy Skills. Applied Developmental Science, 12(3), 113–127. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888690802199392

11 Curby, T. W., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T. R., Pianta, R. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., … Barbarin, O. (2009). The Relations of Observed Pre-K Classroom Quality Profiles to Children’s Achievement and Social Competence. Early Education and Development, 20(2), 346–372. http://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802581284

12 Phillips, D. A., Gormley, W. T., & Lowenstein, A. E. (2009). Inside the pre-kindergarten door: Classroom climate and instructional time allocation in Tulsa’s pre-K programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(3), 213–228. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.05.002

13 Côté, S. M., Mongeau, C., Japel, C., Xu, Q., Séguin, J. R., & Tremblay, R. E. (2013). Child Care Quality and Cognitive Development: Trajectories Leading to Better Preacademic Skills. Child Development, 84(2), 752–766. http://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12007

14 Howes, C., Phillips, D., & Whitebrook, M. (1992). Thresholds of quality: Implications for the social development of children in center-based child care. Child Development, 63, 449-460.

15 Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child-care quality and children’s social development. Developmental Psychology, 23, 537-543.

16 Anderson, C. W., Nagel, R. J., Roberts, W. A., & Smith, J. W. (1981). Attachment to substitute caregivers as a function of centre quality and caregiver involvement. Child Development, 52, 53-61.

17 Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1987). In search of consistencies in child care research. In D. A. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

18 Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent play with peers: Social and social pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28, 961-974.

19 Kontos, S.J. (1991). Child care quality, family background, and children’s development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 249-262.

20 Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1992). Children’s relationships with caregivers: Mothers and child care teachers. Child Development, 63, 859-866.

21 Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 166–176. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.004

22 Early, D.M. et al. Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development, 78(2), 558-580. doi:10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00106-5

23 Barnett, W.S. et al. (2015). The State of Preschool-2014. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER.24 Barnett, W.S. (2003). Better Teachers, Better Preschools: Student Achievement Linked to Teacher Qualifications, Preschool

Policy Matters, 2. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER.25 DoDI 6060.02, August 5, 201426 Barnett, W. S., Tarr, J., Lamy, C., & Frede, E. (1999). Children’s educational needs and community capacity in the Abbott

Districts. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Early Education, Rutgers University. Marshall, N. L., Creps, C. L., Burstein, N. R., Glantz, F. B., Robeson, W. W., and Barnett, W. S. (2001). The cost and quality



of full-day, year-round early care and education in Massachusetts preschool classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Wellesley Center for Women and Abt Associates. Marshall, N.L., Creps, C.L., Burstein, N.R., Glantz, F.B., Robeson, W.W., Barnett, W.S., Schimmenti, J., & Keefe, N. (2002) Early care and education in Massachusetts public school preschool classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Wellesley Center for Women and Abt Associates.

27 Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher background and adult: child ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 404-425. The samples included 655 classrooms from the Cost, Quality and Outcomes study and 410 classrooms from the Florida Quality Improvement study. The teacher education levels tested were high school only, some early childhood education, an AA degree or CDA (depending on the study), and a BA in early childhood education.

28 Burchinal, M., Howes, C., & Kontos, S. (2002). Structural predictors of child care quality in child care homes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 87-105.

29 Whitebook, M. (2003). Bachelor’s degrees are best: Higher qualifications for pre-kindergarten teachers lead to better learning environments for children. Washington, DC: The Trust for Early Education.

30 Vu, J. A., Jeon, H.-J., & Howes, C. (2008). Formal Education, Credential, or Both: Early Childhood Program Classroom Practices. Early Education and Development, 19(3), 479–504. http://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802065379

31 Early, D. M., Bryant, D. M., Pianta, R. C., Clifford, R. M., Burchinal, M. R., Ritchie, S., Howes, C., & Barbarin, O. (2006). Are teachers’ education, major, and credentials related to classroom quality and children’s academic gains in pre-kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 174-195.

32 Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher background and adult-child ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 404-425.

33 Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Vanell, D. L., Burchinal, M., O’Brien, M., & McCartney, K. (2002). Do regulable features of child-care homes affect children’s development? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 52-86.

34 Burchinal, M., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 2-11.

35 Barnett, W.S. (2003a). Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher qualifications. Preschool Policy Matters, 2. New Brunswick, NJ: NIEER.

36 Bowman, B., Donovan, M.S. & Burns, S. (Eds.) (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. National Research Council, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

37 Howes, C. & Brown, J. (2000). Improving child care quality: A guide for Proposition 10 commissions. In N. Halfon, E. Shulman, M. Shannon, & M. Hochstein (Eds.), Building community systems for young children. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families, and Communities.

38 Domitrovich, C. E., Gest, S. D., Gill, S., Bierman, K. L., Welsh, J. A., & Jones, D. (2009). Fostering high-quality teaching with an enriched curriculum and professional development support: The Head Start REDI program. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 567–597. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208328089

39 Powell, Douglas R.; Diamond, Karen E.; Burchinal, Margaret R.; Koehler, Matthew J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on head start teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 299-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017763

40 Burchinal, M., Cryer, D., Clifford, R. M. (2002). Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 2-11.

41 Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-Kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.05.002

42 http://www.naeyc.org/academy/files/academy/file/Teacher_Child_Ratio_Chart.pdf43 Vandell, D.L.& Wolfe, B. (2002).Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to be improved? Institute for Research on

Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison44 Phillipsen, L.C., Burchinal, M.R., Howes,C.& Cryer,D. (1997).The prediction of process quality from structural features of child

care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 281–303.45 Bowman, B.T., Donovan, M.S.,& Burns, M.S.(Eds.) (2000). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press. 46 Ruopp, R.,Travers,J., Glantz,F.,&.Coelen,C.(1979).Children at the Center: Final Report of the National Day Care Study.

Cambridge,MA: Abt Associates. 47 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2000). Characteristics and

quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 116-135.48 deSchipper, E., Rieksen-Walraven, M., & Guerts, S. (2006). Effects of child-caregiver ratio on the interactions between

caregivers and children in child care centers: An experimental study. Child Development, 77, 861-864.49 Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher background and adult: child ratio.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 404 – 425.50 Clarke-Stewart,K.A.Gruber,C.P.& Fitzgerald,L.M.(1994).Children at home and in day care. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.51 Ghazvini, A., & Mullis, R. L. (2002). Center-based care for young children: Examining predictors of quality. The Journal of

Genetic Psychology, 163, 112 – 125.52 Palmerus, K., & Hagglund, S. (1991). The impact of children/caregiver ratio on activities and social interaction in six day care

centre groups. Early Child Development and Care, 67, 29-38.53 Palmerus, K. (1996). Child-caregiver ratios in day care center groups: Impact on verbal interactions. Early Child Development

and Care, 118, 45 – 57.54 Arthur J. Reynolds, PhD; Brandt A. Richardson, BA; Momoko Hayakawa, PhD; Erin M. Lease, MA; MalloryWarner-Richter,

MPP; Michelle M. Englund, PhD; Suh-Ruu Ou, PhD; Molly Sullivan, MPP. ( 2014). Association of a Full-Day vs Part-Day Preschool Intervention With School Readiness, Attendance, and Parent Involvement. Journal of the American Medical Association.



312(20):2126-2134. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.1537655 Votruba-Drzal, E., Levine coley, R., & Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, P. (2004). Child Care and Low-Income Children’s Development:

Direct and Moderated Effects. Child Development, 75(1), 296–312. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00670.x56 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). Does amount of time spent in child care predict socioemotional adjustment

during the transition to kindergarten? Child Development, 74(4), 976–1005. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.0058257 Abner, K. S., Gordon, R. A., Kaestner, R., & Korenman, S. (2013). Does Child-Care Quality Mediate Associations Between Type

of Care and Development? Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1203–1217. http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12055.58 NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Early Child Care and Children’s Development in the Primary Grades:

Follow-up Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 537–570.59 Ashe, K., Reed, S., Dickinson, D.K., Morse, A.B., & Wilson, S.J. (2009). Opening the World of Learning: Features, effectiveness,

and implementation strategies. Early Childhood Services, 3, 179–191. Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks Project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136-163. DOI: 10.2307/30034954

60 Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., Stechuk, R., & Burns, S. (2008). Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A randomized trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(3), 299–313. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.03.001

61 Barnett, W. S., Jung, K., Youn, M.-J., & Frede, E. C. (2013). Abbott Preschool Program longitudinal effects study: Fifth grade follow-up. New Jersey: The State University of New Jersey. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/APPLES%205th%20Grade.pdf

62 Jackson, B., Larzelere, R., St. Clair, L., Corr, M., Fichter, C., & Egertson, H. (2006). The impact of HeadsUp! Reading on early childhood educators’ literacy practices and preschool children’s literacy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 213–226. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.005

63 Meisels, S.J., Liaw,F., Dorfman, A. & Nelson, R.F. (1995). The Work Sampling System: Reliability and validity of a performance assessment system for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 277-296.

64 Shonkoff, J.P., & Meisels, S.J. (2000). Handbook of early childhood intervention, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.65 Ibid.66 Jones, S. N., & Meisels, S. J. Training family day care providers to work with special needs children. Topics in Early Childhood

Special Education. 7, 1-12.67 Knoche, L., Peterson, C. A., Edwards, C. P., & Jeon, H. (2006). Child care for children with and without disabilities: The provider,

observer, and parent perspectives. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 21, 93-109.68 Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC:

National Association for the Education of Young Children.69 Elicker, James; Noppe, Illene C; Noppe, Lloyd D; Fornter-Wood, Cheryl. (1997). The parent-caregiver relationship scale:

Rounding out the relationship system in infant child care. Early Education and Development, 8(1), 83-100.70 Burchinal, M., Campbell, F., Bryant, D., Wasik, B. & Ramey, C. (1997). Early intervention and mediating processes in cognitive

performance of children of low-income African American families. Child Development, 68, 935-954.71 Daniels, S. (1995). Can pre-school education affect children’s achievement in primary school? Oxford Review of Education,

21,163-177.72 Zellman, G. & Waterman, J. (1998). Understanding the impact of parent-school involvement on children’s educational

outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, 370-380.73 Griffith, J. (1996). Relation of parent involvement, empowerment, and school traits to student academic performance. Journal

of Educational Research, 90, 33-41.74 Lin, Q. (2003). Research Digest: Parent involvement and early literacy. Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from www.

gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/digest/literacy.html, September 28, 2007.75 Weaver, R. E. H. (2002)a. The roots of quality care: Strengths of master providers. Young Children 57, (1) 16-22.76 Fiene, R. (2002). Improving child care quality through an infant caregiver mentoring project. Child & Youth Care Forum, 31(2),

79-87.77 Fiene, R. (2002). 13 Indicators of Quality Child Care: Research Update. National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child

Care, University of Colorado.78 Mims, S. U., Scott-Little, C., Lower, J. K., Cassidy, D. J., & Hestenes, L. L. (2008). Education Level and Stability As It Relates

to Early Childhood Classroom Quality: A Survey of Early Childhood Program Directors and Teachers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(2), 227–237. http://doi.org/10.1080/02568540809594657

79 Burchinal, Hong, Forestieri, Sabol, Peisner-Feinberg, Tarullo, & Zaslow. (2014). Psychometric Analyses: Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. Featured paper presented at the annual Child Care Policy Research Consortium meeting. Washington, DC.

80 Burchinal, M., Campbell, F., Bryant, D., Wasik, B. & Ramey, C. (1997). Early intervention and mediating processes in cognitive performance of children of low-income African American families. Child Development, 68, 935-954.

81 ref. for curriculum as an aspect of quality-NAEYC, etc.82 C. Stevens, personal communication83 The Calculator provides costs in exact dollars and cents. We round to $0.1 million both for ease of viewing and to reflect the

level of uncertainty inherent in the large number of computations and the nature of the data available.84 National Survey of Early Care and Education, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/national-survey-of-

early-care-and-education-nsece-2010-2014

preschool access feasibility study · 2016-06-03 · 4 8,) 1-0- 8%6= * %1-0= 6)7)%6',-27 - 9 )...

Documents